Recently Steve Jobs made the statement, in an email exchange with a blogger, that the iPad (and by such, Apple) was giving people the “freedom from porn”. I ask, is this just the tip of the iceberg for Apple and Mr. Jobs?
I am not going to launch into a morality debate here. To me, this is a much larger issue — an issue of censorship. But I will say this: The problem with censoring things like “porn” is that everyone has their own definition of what “porn” is and what it isn’t. Here’s my definition from a few months ago. The definition used by many would label Michelangelo’s statue of David as “porn”. As a photographer, I feel there is absolutely no difference in that statue and a photograph — statues of that period were very anatomically correct and were as close to a modern day photograph as they were able to get given the technology of the period.
As I’ve repeatedly stated on several occasions (although I’m presently unable to locate any such public postings on either Twitter or Facebook :shrugs:) that I am against censorship of any sort. This is not to say that I feel people shouldn’t exercise restraint. I just feel that people should not tell others what they cannot say. After all, in this country we have the freedom of speech.
Forced censorship — by programming it into systems (such as what some large social networking sites have done) — it leaves people wondering where the line gets drawn and who makes that decision. This is the direction that it is appearing that Apple is heading, hopefully they won’t go as far as censoring the messages sent by users of the iPad (or any other future devices).
“I don’t condone what Dr. Zoidberg did but I’ll fight tooth and nail for his freedom to do it.”
– “Old Man Waterfall” in the Futurama episode “A Taste of Freedom” (transcription)
It is a very sad thing, to me, when a computing device touted as a “savior” of photography begins to censor whole segments of photography. This is a very slippery slope.
To be perfectly fair, Apple (and Mr. Jobs) is only censoring the applications sold via the Apple App Store, and not the web content visited with the Safari browser on the device, nor are they censoring the content directly placed on the device (e.g., photos or videos produced by a photographer and placed on the device for use as a digital portfolio).
However, ask yourself this, what is to stop them from trying to code usage of a distributed domain blacklist into the device’s browser? That would be very easy for them to do. But, what about the content you place on the device? Well… there’s face recognition software that works good enough for it to be placed in point-and-shoot cameras (e.g., Sony W-Series released in 2007). So… how hard would it be to alter that technology to recognize other parts of the body? Couldn’t be all that hard, but I’m not a graphic software engineer — I went thru a different set of courses in college.
Do I honestly think that Apple will do these things? No. Do I think that Steve Jobs would if he felt it was the best thing for the iPad? Hell yes I do. He’d do it in a heartbeat.
What I’m left with, after reading about the programmatic censoring of content by large companies such as Facebook and Apple, is a sense of dread and worry that they’ll keep expanding such censorship efforts. In fact, I’ve found myself debating whether or not I should mention Facebook in this post since my blog is being pulled into “Notes” over there. This is not how people should have to live — under the fear that they’ll have accounts deleted or be unable to use a computer-like device for whatever they want — yet it is exactly what happens when companies start forcing censorship on their own.
More Reading:
- Steve Jobs Offers World ‘Freedom From Porn’
- How Apple is Watering Down Fashion Spreads
- Favorite sound-bite: “A British fashion magazine has reportedly dubbed its iPad issue ‘the Iran edition’.”
- The iPad Will Change Photography Part 1
- The iPad Will Change Photography Part 2
- Will the iPad Save Photography?
- Facebook’s E-mail Censorship is Legally Dubious, Experts Say
There’s a distinction that should be made here, one that distills what it sounds like to what it is.
First of all, I and no one that I know (artist or not) considers Michelangelo’s David to be porn. Those who do are generally not taken very seriously, since they represent a more “extreme” side conservatism. More often than not, they are regarded as the “scary people”
That being said, the mainstream definition of porn is actually pretty simple: the blatant and graphic depiction of sexual intercourse. I trust I dont need to elaborate what blatant and graphic means in this context? Nudity is not porn, be it either male or female. Watching two people get it on is generally what people think of when they think “porn”
The reality is that Apple and Steve Jobs dont really give a damn what kind of content we have on our ipad/pod/phone’s, porn included. They are not in the business of enforcing a moralistic dogma on the general public. That’s the province of Church’s and Synagogues (a battle they have been losing over the last several decades, I might add).
So why the confusion? It’s easier for them to say “no porn”. It’s direct, and states their intent pretty clearly. It also leaves a barn door wide space for interpretation of their intentions. What I think they’re really saying is “Do what you want regarding what sites you visit or what pictures you put on your device. Just dont ask us to be a part of it” Translation: No pornographic content via their itunes store. This is why apps like that generally get scrutinized pretty heavily.
So is this a bad thing? Is this censorship? I guess it could be called that. But then again so could my spam filter on my email. I would love to be able to open my email and NOT get messages for XYZ porn content. My filter does a pretty good job and I am able to miss out on 99% of it.
Isnt that censorship? Its automatic, and I dont think I could disable it entirely. In the end, it’s the same desire with Itunes. I dont want to have to sift thru the sleaze to find what I want. As a tech oriented person, I can tune that stuff out to a more or lesser degree, but what about those in my parents generation? I dont know what my mother looks for on the itunes store, but I can state with certainty it is not “Debbie does Dallas”.
Finally, will Apple get into the game of adding filters and controls? I sincerely doubt it, for one very simple reason: They are NOT morons. They know that many (myself included) would not stand for something as blatant as that. There’s a degree of common sense that needs to be employed when discussing this topic, and unfortunately it something the censorship alarmists never seem to be able to do.
The problem with that, is that Apple has enacted a “no nudity” policy with the App Store, yet their key people spout the “no porn” mantra. Is it that the word “porn” gets people to pay more attention than “nudity” or is it that they really think that nudity = porn?
For examples, read the “How Apple is Watering Down Fashion Spreads” post or this one that is yet another source that I’ve seen where it’s stating a “no swimsuit” policy as well.
So… if all that they say is “no porn”, but they ban more, then am I wrong in connecting the dots that they’re associated swimsuits with porn? o.O Perhaps. But at least I’m not alone… whether or not that’s a good thing is probably debatable.
I’ll answer my own question and say that yes, I do happen to think that the word “porn” is a much better headline attention grabber than “nudity”.
Sadly, Steve Jobs own words do spell out that he believes Apple has a “moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone” (http://www.tipb.com/2010/04/20/steve-jobs-porn-android/).
The difference between spam filters and what the apple store is doing comes down to who is doing it. You are in control of your spam filters. You still have the ability (with most filtering systems I’ve encountered, save one) to view the mail which has been flagged as spam (one filter had the ability to directly & permanently delete). Not so with the way Apple is operating. Sure, it’s their store. So they can pick and choose. But it stops being “their” device once it is sold — or does it? o.O I don’t have one, so maybe somewhere in the fine print it states they have the ability to control any and all content on the device — ala Amazon’s Kindle.
And, yes… those people that are such prudes as to equate any and all nudity (or heck, swimsuits) as being “porn” are very “scary people” indeed. And it is for that purpose that I am worried about the direction that I’m seeing Apple head…
:shrugs: I guess I really shouldn’t let their decisions bother me so much — especially since I don’t own any of their devices.
Thinking on this topic for a while, I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t particularly want to see “erotic” content on someone’s iPhone or iPad in the next seat on the plane or in the neighborhood coffee shop. But… whose responsibility is it? The computer manufacturer or the person who owns the device? Is there really any difference between someone reading a Playboy magazine (the actual, physical, print edition) or an electronic version? Honestly, I’ve never seen anyone (besides in that aisle in a bookstore) reading such a magazine in public. Perhaps people feel that the iPad is somehow different and requires a heavier hand. Dunno.
BTW, I might not agree with Steve Jobs on a lot of things, but I do like his clothing choice. LOL