Apple iPhone police censor South Park

Schizophrenic puritans


Apple has blocked the creators of South Park from selling an iPhone app based on the long-running cartoon series.

According to a BoingBoing post, the blog site's "friends at South Park" said that "We first announced our iPhone App back in October, after we submitted the Application to Apple for approval. After a couple of attempts to get the application approved, we are sad to say that our app has been rejected."

The reason? The content was "potentially offensive."

South Park? Potentially offensive? Who knew?

Earth to Apple: South Park's rowdy rudeness is exactly why it has been a raging success since it first stuck its finger in our collective eye a dozen years ago.

The gatekeepers of the App Store have either been living in a cave since 1997 or are far more sensitive than the folks who approve the iTunes Store's movie and TV offerings. Apple is more than willing to sell you 12 seasons-worth of South Park episodes, as well as South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (iTunes link), which could also be considered "potentially offensive" if you're Canadian, a fan of either Saddam Hussein or God, or a Jewish mother.

Apple's censorship is erratic, to say the least. Apple banned a jocular jubblies jiggler named iBoobs, but allowed two apps that essentially endorse the same juvenalia, Wobble and iJiggles - and then asked the Wobblers to remove any references to "boobs" and "booty" from their marketing blurb.

Boobs and booty may be bad in Apple's view, but it's perfectly fine for the iTunes Store to offer an entire line of audiobooks by Susie Bright (mildly NSFW) in which she discusses such arresting topics as why some poor fellow can't get off when his wife gives him head.

And although the Wobblers can't use the word "boobs," antediluvian comedienne Phyllis Diller is permitted to flog her book Men are Stupid...And They Like Big Boobs (iTunes link).

More serious is Apple's less boobaphobic puritanism. For example, last year it banned Infurious Comics' Murderdrome in a clear case of nanny-vendor censorship - another clearly inconsistent censorship decision, seeing as how such slasher flicks as the full Saw oeuvre are all readily available.

From our point of view, Cartman is infinitely cuter than the Jigsaw Killer.

Perhaps the reason for Apple's refusal to carry the South Park game is a simple case of economics. According to BoingBoing, the South Park app would allow iPhone and iPod Touch users "the ability to stream clips" of the show.

And although South Park clips - even full episodes - are available from the South Park web site, perhaps Apple simply doesn't want an iPhone-based clip player to supply content that it's getting good money for at the iTunes Store. ®


Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022