iPhone sexiness: Part ii
Posted on February 24, 2010
Filed Under Coverage, May I Interject?, Thought |
I had a comment on my last post that challenged my argument. My rebuttal statement, I think, helps elaborate my previous argument:
As for entertaining this angle– How do you think the New York Times would cover this? You think they would only show the side of the whiny-I-miss-my-boobs-app iPhone owners? There is a place and time for everything. Your employer probably does not let you surf Internet porn at work. Why not get mad at them? The point is that porn never made a good argument for mobility–It’s best kept in one’s own privacy and in a context of solitude.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You are talking about this as if it’s a violation of freedom of information–like Apple is “censoring” these things. I’ll tell you why that’s not true.
In reality this is just a BUSINESS DECISION. Barnes & Noble does not carry pornography because it is a BUSINESS DECISION. Blockbuster does not rent pornography because it is a BUSINESS DECISION. It’s not censorship, it’s merely a choice made that will reflect on the company.You can very well surf the Internet from your phone and find pornography, but this is not pornography distributed by and for Apple products.
You point out the argument about the Swimsuit Illustrated app. This is a mainstream publication. It’s not just an app someone created. Removing the S.I. app would be like removing S.I. from Barnes & Noble or any number of films from Blockbuster that show women in bikinis. Apple is simply making an age-old business decision, and because they are just ONE company, they are NOT the government, they have every right to do that.