Apple blames Hitler for EFF iPhone ban

happygeek 0 404 Views

Here we go again, it is silly season at Apple as an iPhone application feeding news from a civil liberties organisation is banned and Hitler gets the blame.

Just two days ago I posted a news story entitled 'You don't have to be easily offended to be an iPhone app approver, but it helps' which explained how an eBook reader app was banned because it might be used to view sexually explicit texts. This coming on top of other mad decisions, apparently taken to protect those who are prone to be offending by everything, such as banning a game featuring Barack Obama bouncing on a trampoline and another paying homage to South Park, the hugely popular cartoon series aimed at adults.

Now it would appear that the Apple iPhone app approvers have decided to play up to their easily offended stereotype by banning an application which displays news content from the Electronic Freedom Federation RSS feed on the iPhone. The EFF, of course, are a long established civil rights organisation which deals with freedom as far as the online realm is concerned. Could be quite the wrong target to pick upon, you might imagine, if the reasoning behind the ban was not 100 percent watertight.

Oh dear, Apple, looks like the water is pouring in on this one: the application was banned on the grounds of objectionable content. In this case, that content was a link to a parody video made by EFF Board Chairman Brad Templeton in order to highlight concerns about DRM and fair use within the entertainment industry online. The objectionable bit being that the video features Hitler as an entertainments industry executive.

As the EFF itself says "Now, Apple may find EFF "objectionable" for any number of reasons... But surely linking to a video that includes a "bad word" can't be one of them. After all, the YouTube app that Apple includes on every iPhone that ships will let you watch exactly the same video, bad word and all. And you can use the Safari web browser that ships with every iPhone to access EFF's website, as well as millions of web sites that include much more extreme language."

The EFF is clear that Apple can decide what apps it carries or not, but is equally adamant that it should not be "playing the role of language police" while disallowing iPhone users from shopping elsewhere for apps. "This is precisely why EFF has asked the Copyright Office to grant an exemption to the DMCA for . It's none of Apple's business if I want an app on my phone that lets me read EFF's RSS feed, use Sling Player over 3G, or read the Kama Sutra" a spokesperson says.

Dani AI

Generated

nailed the tone — this rejection is a good example of how the App Store’s “objectionable content” rule can be applied inconsistently and suddenly. Apple’s reviewers flagged an EFF-themed RSS reader because one linked post pointed to a Downfall-style parody that briefly included profanity. The incident was reported contemporaneously in outlets such as Macworld. (macworld.com)

Practical context: Apple’s review policy explicitly bars “objectionable” material but also recognizes context (for example, exemptions for professional political satire). That tension is why a news or advocacy feed can be acceptable in principle but still trigger a reviewer’s rejection if a particular item looks problematic at a glance. Refer to Apple’s current App Review Guidelines for the rule text and examples. (developer.apple.com)

Concrete steps a developer could follow to avoid this kind of rejection:

  • Make the app’s purpose and sources crystal clear in the app metadata and screenshots; mark it as a third‑party reader, not an official organization app.
  • Use the App Review Information field in App Store Connect to explain how the feed works, call out any items that might appear “objectionable,” and provide sample links so reviewers see the context.
  • Add a content-warning or user opt‑in for potentially offensive items, or open external links in Safari rather than embedding them.
  • Set an appropriate age rating and content descriptors in App Store Connect. These submission-side controls reduce subjective surprises during review. (developer.apple.com)

If a rejection still happens, reply through the Resolution Center with a concise explanation and context; if unresolved, file an appeal to the App Review Board and include why the content is news/satire and any mitigating UI controls. These channels and the appeal process are documented by Apple. The episode underlines that decisions can feel arbitrary — so preventive clarity in the app listing and a calm, documented appeal are the most effective remedies. (developer.apple.com)

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Edit Preview