Ondrej Holzman The whole world is currently watching the terrible scenes from Paris, where two days ago armed attackers broke into the newsroom magazine Charlie Hebdo and mercilessly shot twelve people, including two policemen. A "Je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie) campaign was immediately launched around the world in solidarity with the satirical weekly, which regularly published controversial cartoons.
In support of the magazine itself and the freedom of speech attacked by armed, as-yet-uncaught terrorists, thousands of French people took to the streets and flooded the Internet with the signs "Je suis Charlie" countless cartoons, which artists from all over the world send to support their deceased colleagues.
In addition to journalists and others, Apple also joined the campaign, which on the French mutation of your website he just posted the message "Je suis Charlie". On his part, it is rather a hypocritical gesture rather than an act of solidarity.
If you go to Apple's e-book store, you won't find the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, which is probably one of the most famous magazines in Europe at the moment. If you fail in the iBookstore, you won't succeed in the App Store either, where some publications have their own special applications. However, it is not because this weekly does not want to be there. The reason is simple: for Apple, the content of Charlie Hebdo is unacceptable.
Often controversial cartoons appeared on the cover (and not only there) of a strongly anti-religious and left-oriented magazine, and their creators had no problem dabbling in politics, culture, but also religious topics, including Islam, which ultimately proved fatal for them.
It was the controversial drawings that were in fundamental conflict with Apple's strict rules, which must be followed by everyone who wants to publish in the iBookstore. In short, Apple did not dare to allow potentially problematic content, in any form, into its stores, which is why even Charlie Hebdo magazine never appeared in it.
In 2010, when the iPad hit the market, the publishers of the French weekly had planned to start developing their own app, but when they were told in the process that Charlie Hebdo wouldn't make it to the App Store anyway due to its content, they gave up their efforts beforehand. “When they came to us to make Charlie for the iPad, we listened carefully,” wrote in September 2010, the then editor-in-chief of the magazine Stéphane Charbonnier, nicknamed Charb, who, despite police protection, did not survive Wednesday's terrorist attack.
“When we came to the conclusion at the end of the conversation that we could publish the complete content on the iPad and sell it for the same price as the paper version, it looked like we were going to make a deal. But the last question changed everything. Can Apple speak to the content of the newspapers it publishes? Yes of course! No sex and maybe other things," explained Charb, explaining why Charlie Hebdo did not participate in this trend at a time when, after the arrival of the iPad, many print publications were going digital. "Some drawings could be considered inflammatory and might not pass censorship," dodal editor-in-chief for Bakshish.
In his post, Charbonnier practically said goodbye to the iPad forever, saying that Apple would never censor his satirical content, and at the same time he strongly relied on Apple and its then CEO Steve Jobs that he could afford such a thing under freedom of speech. “The prestige of being able to be read digitally is nothing compared to the freedom of the press. Blinded by the beauty of technological progress, we don't see that the great engineer is actually a dirty little cop," Charb didn't take his napkins and asked rhetorical questions about how some newspapers can accept this potential censorship by Apple, even if they don't have to go through it themselves, as well as readers on the iPad can guarantee that its content has not, for example, been edited compared to the printed version?
In 2009, the well-known American cartoonist Mark Fiore did not pass the approval process with his application, which Charb also mentioned in his post. Apple labeled Fiore's satirical drawings of politicians as mocking public figures, which was in direct violation of its rules, and rejected the app with that content. Everything changed only a few months later, when Fiore won the Pulitzer Prize for his work as the first cartoonist to publish exclusively online.
When Fiore then complained that he would also like to get on the iPads, in which he sees the future, Apple rushed to him with a request to once again send his application for approval. Eventually, the NewsToons app did make it to the App Store, but, as he later admitted, Fiore felt a little guilty.
“Sure, my app was approved, but what about the others who didn't win the Pulitzer and maybe have a much better political app than me? Do you need media attention to get an app with political content approved?” Fiore asked rhetorically, whose case is now strikingly reminiscent of Apple's current never-ending vagaries of rejecting and then re-approving apps in the App Store related to iOS 8 rules.
Fiore himself never tried to submit his app to Apple after the first rejection, and if he didn't have the publicity he needed after winning the Pulitzer Prize, he probably never would have made it to the App Store. A similar approach was taken by the weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo, which, when it learned that its content would be subject to censorship on the iPad, refused to participate in the transition to digital form.
It's a bit surprising that Apple, which has been so wary of politically incorrect content lest it tarnish its snow-white dress, is now announcing "I'm Charlie."
Update 10/1/2014, 11.55:2010 AM: We have added to the article a statement from former Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Stéphane Charbonnier from XNUMX regarding the digital version of his weekly.
That's really not nice.
Unless there is a link to the electronic versions of the last few years of the magazine under that black strip.
This abuse of the approval process is truly disgusting and dangerous to freedom. Next, Apple will want to approve pages that can be loaded in the browser. Apple certainly does not have a snow-white dress, as well as similar companies. If he had any decency for the victims, he'd shut up.
Yes, just as disgusting and dangerous for freedom as visiting a vegetarian restaurant and complaining about the fact that they don't sell meat there.. Mr. Macropus, please get over yourself.
Right, I forgot that Vegetarian restaurant = they don't serve meat is the same as Apple = I'm checking what newspaper you can read. I understand that it may suit some people.
But they don't control anything, it's their business for which they set some conditions, and whoever violates them they won't let him in, that makes sense. Calm down, buy the newspaper on the Internet or go to Paris to buy it, just please don't write nonsense about Apple controlling which newspapers you can read. You have X more options to get to the newspaper. And if the appstore/ibooks doesn't suit you, it's high time to change the platform.
And what if, for example, Google deleted all mentions of Apple? Do you think that would be ok too? It is a private company after all…
Yes, it would be ok, as you wrote, it is a private company and it can dictate the rules it wants. But that does not mean that the rules are correct. And whether they are correct or not is very difficult to say objectively, since everyone will have a different opinion on it.
Does the newspaper not have a website, so it needs an app in the Appstore? And I don't really understand what people find offensive about Apple expressing their condolences in such a way, and I seriously don't think it's hypocritical. Free choice is not only about changing devices, where there is a possibility to download such an application from a competitor, if any such application is created there at all. But about finding other ways to get to the given content also through Apple devices. I accessed their content on the internet today through my iPhone. I haven't looked into it in detail, but it works, so what's the problem. I don't have a billion apps on my phone to have to download journalism apps. And there are a lot of them in the store. I don't really need that. Another option is to subscribe to their feed on Twitter or Facebook and certainly on other social networks. So I don't see what anyone is playing here. And I don't understand how anyone can't understand that Apple, as the owner of the company, sets the rules for app approval or what can or cannot appear within Apple. I don't consider such rules to be censorship, but a fact. Transfer it to the company/company where you work. There are also some guidelines and what about society, certain differences and it is certainly not considered a restriction of freedom. And I could go on.
Yes, that would be perfectly fine. The question is whether anyone would still use Google if they didn't get to something as clear as Apple in the general search engine. In this case, it is about the quality of the product. And if Apple were to disappear from Google, Google's customers would probably decrease significantly more than Apple's customers will (have decreased) for not wanting to publish a stupid cartoonist magazine, which until this week, all of us who are discussing here had no idea. Admit to Macropus that Charlie Hebdo was completely stolen from you on Tuesday and you certainly did not fight for its inclusion in the App Store. Or yes?
Yes, I don't read Charlie, but it's a principle that I've criticized here a few times. The problem is that you can very easily manipulate people in this way and they may not even notice. And most importantly, it is done slowly, so that the user gets used to it. And of course with Apple, one has the choice to go elsewhere and has an influence on a relatively small part of PC users. If Microsoft or Google, which dominate the market, did a similar thing, it would be a shame, because the influence of these companies on society is multiple.
In terms of content, Microsoft has significantly less influence than Apple. So this is where your theory falters. And here it is, after all, that someone who did not meet Apple's conditions was not allowed into the AppStore. It is bad? Why? Is the fact that Apple does not allow porn in its store also a limitation of free speech and censorship? Maybe yes, maybe not, but it's his business and his politics and his freedom. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. After all, Apple is not the only medium where one can read this nonsense. So you can't pass it off as some dark threat or restriction of freedoms...
Of course, Google does not publish links that violate its rules.
Amen
Attention, if Apple requests, Google will delete the search results for the Apple password in Europe, but it is not talked about much, it is due to the fact that some Spaniard, when he entered Google, found that he was a debtor, which is already long time no…
dangerous to freedom? :D because he doesn't want to publish a diary of caricatures mocking politicians/religion? it's just that apple has some rules according to which it approves, and if someone doesn't meet these rules, then bad luck....why, as soon as they don't allow a journalist to publish something somewhere, etc., everyone starts to stop and flaunt freedom of speech?
As an IT technician, I would like to tell you one thing. Apple is 100% aware that what it does not control, it cannot change, and it is probably not in imminent danger of controlling the Internet, so I doubt that it would censor the Internet in its applications or on its devices. To achieve this, really effectively, he would have to spend a really large amount of resources and, above all, time, and the result will not correspond to the effort.
Furthermore, it is also clear to him that once he did this, the number of jailbroken devices would increase, because iOves are not as stupid as they are rumored to be, and the departure of these users from the AppStore to Cydia is not his goal...
The only thing he is able to control himself are the things he created, i.e. AppStore, IBookStore, iTunes Store, and there he will do whatever he wants, even if he sometimes succumbs to public opinion.
Are you Charlie too?
http://frantisekmatejka.blog.idnes.cz/c/442897/Jsi-taky-Charlie-Ja-teda-rozhodne-ne-Ja-nejsem-Charlie.html
That is terrible nonsense. What is hypocritical about someone expressing solidarity with the victims of brutal murder by fanatical lunatics. This does not mean that Apple has to agree to the demented articles and cartoons of the "satirical" magazine, which is simply stupid and tries to discredit anyone at any cost. Let whoever wants to read it, and of course it's nonsense and literally horrible to kill for it, but that still doesn't mean that the magazine isn't just trash, and I'm not at all surprised that Apple didn't let it on the App Store. This assessment is rather hypocritical. And I don't even know what it is when a private company doesn't let someone dangerous to freedom into their business. Apple certainly doesn't have a snow-white dress, but it's definitely up to Apple to decide what they let into their store and what they don't. And if we don't like his policy, we have a free choice. Namely, stop using his products. Get back on the ground gentlemen. Apple is a private company, it does not pretend to be an independent media, nor is it publicly owned. So don't talk about freedom here if you can't respect Apple's freedom.
Totally agree, tabloids biased article. criticizing apple for expressing condolences to the victims, like the rest of the world, is completely out of line.
You probably did not understand that the slogan Je suis Charlie = I am Charlie does not only mean expressing condolences, but also signing up to the values that this magazine represented. Apple has made it clear publicly that it does not agree with these values, and therefore it is embarrassing and inappropriate to say the least. Apple could have done it like Google and just put a black ribbon as an expression of condolence.
I disagree, in that case you should also criticize the New York Times - they refused to publish similar cartoons because they violated their internal rules and yet they have "nous sommes charlie" on the website
Yes, they are the same hypocrites!
The fact that Apple refused to sell the magazine Charlie Hebdo does not mean that it rejected them and that it rejects freedom of speech. I would just say that they thought rationally there and refused to publish content in their store that could offend other religions or nationalities. Which, in theory, according to the events of the last few days, could lead to terrorist attacks on Apple stores in Europe.
That's nonsense. With that slogan, most people say that we are also people, Europeans, maybe French, fathers, journalists, whoever, and we don't want to be murdered for an opinion or a joke, a stupidity or a caricature, no matter how stupid it is. But most people certainly do not subscribe to the values of Charlie Hebdo, which is just a stupid tabloid, essentially without values. But that doesn't mean that someone should shoot them for it. And that's what "Je suis Charlie" is about.
I wanted to write it, you already gave it
Just Apple..
The only thing I understood from this article was that Charlie Hedbo didn't even submit an "application" to the App Store? So Apple couldn't even realistically reject them. The article only says that the publisher tried to create an app for the iPad, but in the process someone told them that they had no chance of making it through the approval process. So what is the article about? Hypothesis, what if it was? So since they didn't "apply" to the App Store, Apple never really rejected them, and now they're being criticized for showing sympathy? Well, what can I add...
We have added to the article the original statement of editor-in-chief Charb from 2010, in which he described that when he was told that his content would be subject to censorship when accessed on the iPad, he could not accept it.
poorly!! you translated it stupidly!!
Where is the problem?
So Apple does not tolerate e.g. porn on any platform. If the editor-in-chief couldn't accept it, it's not Apple's fault. I think they were being unnecessarily hysterical - Apple wanted them there, they just weren't willing to give up their right to veto content they thought was inappropriate. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Otherwise, I understand that people like to fantastically accuse Apple of hypocrisy. But disagreeing with 100% of the content but honoring their memory is not hypocrisy in my opinion, it's just basic compassion.
So I get the point, but I think words like hypocrisy and censorship for not letting porn on the iBookstore come across as overkill. It would have been an interesting article without them, this rather unnecessarily added a touch of tabloids.
But it's not just Apple. All newspapers and online dailies including TV in the US censor cartoons from this magazine. So the entire media in the US is in on it.
Censorship is the intervention of the state or similar authority in the content. If private newspapers (media in general) decide what to publish in their newspaper and what not, it is not censorship. It is their legitimate decision. Just like you, you decide who you let into your garden. If you don't let someone in there, it's not a restriction of freedom of movement, but your rightful decision with whom you want to be in your garden.
What is it like to be Charlie?
http://www.dfens-cz.com/view.php?cisloclanku=2015011001
I don't understand the point of the article. At the beginning, you write: "A 'Je suis Charlie' (I am Charlie) campaign was immediately launched around the world in solidarity with the satirical weekly, which regularly published controversial cartoons."
So Apple can't show solidarity by rejecting the magazine in question in its store? Or am I just misunderstanding the wording of the article?
I don't review their app, book, etc. rating policy. this is for a long debate and practically there are enough cracks, viz. for example Fiore, then there are also plenty of PCalc and others in the App Store...
In my opinion, you have grasped the topic in a completely unfortunate way. Apple's decision not to let someone on the Appstore has nothing to do with free speech. It is a commercial decision and its motivation is entirely a matter of the two business parties. Or do you think that a bookseller who does not buy at the store and therefore offers a book to his customers (for whatever reason) thereby threatens freedom of speech? You probably don't think so. For Apple, it's just aggregated by its business power. Nothing more, nothing less. And to link your opinion with, say, an expression of condolence is slightly tendentious and grossly tactless.
Yes, from the point of view of expressing solidarity, a move away from Apple seems almost a necessity (in terms of the influence and size of the company). But the author started a rather interesting topic. I understand that Apple doesn't want porn, shoddy apps, etc. in its stores... But this is another matter. If apple refuses to publish magazines or newspapers just because, albeit not very kosher in style, but still a traditional European form of criticism, it doesn't matter what it is, it seems inappropriate to apple's political and social responsibility. The same as with applications that are not directly under their control. If there is something I don't like about Apple and what I think can reduce its "cool effect" the most, it is this. Apple thus completely senselessly goes against itself and reduces the functionality of its devices as well as the offer of books and magazines. And what's worse, apple is slowly starting to turn against artists and make it impossible for them to function on a very widespread platform, thereby reducing their chances of spreading their work. It's a shame. Perhaps Tim will loosen the reins a little to artists, developers or journalists and allow them to use the canvas that Steve Jobs so painstakingly built and on which only the chosen ones were allowed to scribble.
Expressing disapproval of solving a problem by shooting people in the editorial office and not publishing controversial content, these are two different things! Do you really mean what you write here? Don't think that Apple wanted to say that even if we don't agree with what you write, they didn't have to shoot you right away. Am I wrong?
Apple gave it as an excuse, because Charlie was just another apartment, so he added, the fact that he didn't want anything to do with Charlie for a long time didn't stop him from doing so. Google, as much as I don't like it, behaved much better, expressing its condolences with a black ribbon. Apple is again only playing an embarrassing show and ceasing to be a love brand. This is another line of awkwardness.
and if he didn't, he would be the bad guy because he didn't join