With the introduction of the new iPad, a new wave of freedom of speech concerns has swelled to the surface. The New York Times reported on Pulitzer Prize winner, Mark Fiore, being rejected by the iPhone app store because it “included cartoons that ridiculed public figures.” After the public embarrassment, Steve Jobs personally wrote to Fiore and called the rejection a mistake. It is not clear that other applications making political commentary will be accepted in the future. A slideshow of other rejected applications is available at The Huffington Post.
This story brings up an interesting point about the future of freedom of speech as our personal devices migrate to platforms that only have access to information approved by one publisher — Apple.
After all of these years of enjoying freedom of expression and content on the Internet, we are steering in a conservative, corporate direction with a new device that controls the information we are allowed to receive. Not only that, Apple guides the design principles of their volunteer-content-producer-army…that’s us.
A blog post at Information Architects discusses design “suggestions” in Apple’s HI Guidelines.
Now one thing just didn’t click: The guideline to make apps look like physical objects. It’s quite clear why Apple would try to push designs to imitate tangible things:
- It’s a touch interface: 3D objects look more tangible and inviting
- Everyday interfaces are easy to understand and familiar in their use
- Glitzy interfaces are easier to market
Everybody in the iA team strongly doubted the validity of that particular guideline, but we had no way to verify or falsify our doubts. So we went full steam ahead: Everything 3D! Make a newspaper look like a newspaper! Make that word processor look like a type writer! Use wooden backgrounds! And why? Because Apple said so. – IA Blog
Before the Internet, Public Access Television was developed to give airtime to diverse voices and points of view. Unlike the Internet, there were still communities who could challenge content they found objectionable. There were times when obscure technical requirements would disqualify material from being aired. It was suspected that these technicalities were a guise for censorship.
When the “Spectrum News Network” of Orange County came under fire by conservative members of the community because of its content for gay audiences, the cable access channel proposed a two-week review process before programs aired to ensure “that programs meet certain technical standards, such as clear picture resolution. It also allows the board to reject obscene or defamatory material.”
Carol A. Sobel, senior staff council for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said mandatory review does not violate cable law. The guidelines must clearly state the technical criteria, however, “so that technical quality does not become a mask for eliminating controversial viewpoints,” she said. – LA Times
Not that Apple is approving any content they deem objectionable, the aesthetic standard set by Apple seems ambiguous with ample room for arbitrary enforcement. As the App Store is an open marketplace, it is unclear why Apple should enforce its aesthetic standards on designers creating content for the device. If an app is poorly designed, no one will buy it. But already, Apple has rejected content based on the design having “limited utility.”
The “Pull My Finger” app allowed users to virtually ‘pull’ a character’s finger to have it emit a farting sound. “Pull My Finger” was initially rejected by the iTunes App store on the grounds that it was of ‘limited utility.’ Three months later was accepted and went on to become one of the store’s most popular apps. –Huffington Post
Before you rush out and buy your iPad, just remember the struggles of free speech and the “Pull My Finger” app. Not only can Apple control what you say, they can control how you say it. Has anyone had success in turning that annoying Ken Burn’s effect off of their slideshows?
Photo above from Pee Wee’s Funny or Die video.
