<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_1642241</id>
	<title>Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266945780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Apple is now <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/technology/23apps.html">removing many risque applications from its App Store</a> so as not to 'scare off potential customers.'  The removed applications, including SlideHer and Dirty Fingers, allowed people to see scantily clad women.  Although they were once approved by Apple, even reaching the 'most downloaded' lists, Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.  That said, the Sports Illustrated application is still available for those who want scantily clad women on their iPhone, and developers are <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100223/developers-arms-over-apples-restrictions.htm">up in arms over the perceived inconsistency</a>.  It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there.  On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible."</i>
Some are speculating that this is a ploy from Apple to <a href="http://digital.venturebeat.com/2010/02/23/apple-sex-ban-ipad/">drum up interest in the iPad from educators</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Apple is now removing many risque applications from its App Store so as not to 'scare off potential customers .
' The removed applications , including SlideHer and Dirty Fingers , allowed people to see scantily clad women .
Although they were once approved by Apple , even reaching the 'most downloaded ' lists , Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women .
That said , the Sports Illustrated application is still available for those who want scantily clad women on their iPhone , and developers are up in arms over the perceived inconsistency .
It 's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they do n't have any kind of web browser on there .
On the internet , you 're never more than one click away from something horrible .
" Some are speculating that this is a ploy from Apple to drum up interest in the iPad from educators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Apple is now removing many risque applications from its App Store so as not to 'scare off potential customers.
'  The removed applications, including SlideHer and Dirty Fingers, allowed people to see scantily clad women.
Although they were once approved by Apple, even reaching the 'most downloaded' lists, Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.
That said, the Sports Illustrated application is still available for those who want scantily clad women on their iPhone, and developers are up in arms over the perceived inconsistency.
It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there.
On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.
"
Some are speculating that this is a ploy from Apple to drum up interest in the iPad from educators.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778</id>
	<title>Developers?</title>
	<author>haus</author>
	<datestamp>1266950400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I am a big fan of getting rid of a bunch of content because of seemingly arbitrary rules, but from the sounds of it many of this 'apps' are nothing more then a image (or a few images) of a girl/boy/goat in a bikini. It seems like a bit of a stretch to refer to those who create such content as developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I am a big fan of getting rid of a bunch of content because of seemingly arbitrary rules , but from the sounds of it many of this 'apps ' are nothing more then a image ( or a few images ) of a girl/boy/goat in a bikini .
It seems like a bit of a stretch to refer to those who create such content as developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I am a big fan of getting rid of a bunch of content because of seemingly arbitrary rules, but from the sounds of it many of this 'apps' are nothing more then a image (or a few images) of a girl/boy/goat in a bikini.
It seems like a bit of a stretch to refer to those who create such content as developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251950</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1266925380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So jailbreak the phone and do what you want.</p><p>The app store is not the consumer's property - it is a service offered by Apple that is available to your phone. Apple sells you the app on behalf of the third party developer - and it can choose not to at any time - a fact that the developer is well aware of. There is no "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong" - THEY OWN THE APP STORE so it is very much their business and they can choose what products to carry.</p><p>If you want to exercise your consumer rights, you can jailbreak your phone (which Apple is not prosecuting consumers for) and get your deep-linking porn apps from other sources, or just use the built in browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So jailbreak the phone and do what you want.The app store is not the consumer 's property - it is a service offered by Apple that is available to your phone .
Apple sells you the app on behalf of the third party developer - and it can choose not to at any time - a fact that the developer is well aware of .
There is no " sticking their nose where it does n't belong " - THEY OWN THE APP STORE so it is very much their business and they can choose what products to carry.If you want to exercise your consumer rights , you can jailbreak your phone ( which Apple is not prosecuting consumers for ) and get your deep-linking porn apps from other sources , or just use the built in browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So jailbreak the phone and do what you want.The app store is not the consumer's property - it is a service offered by Apple that is available to your phone.
Apple sells you the app on behalf of the third party developer - and it can choose not to at any time - a fact that the developer is well aware of.
There is no "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong" - THEY OWN THE APP STORE so it is very much their business and they can choose what products to carry.If you want to exercise your consumer rights, you can jailbreak your phone (which Apple is not prosecuting consumers for) and get your deep-linking porn apps from other sources, or just use the built in browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247196</id>
	<title>Clicks to pron</title>
	<author>ChefInnocent</author>
	<datestamp>1266951900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been a long while since I've played clicks to pron, is it now only 1 click from disney.com?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a long while since I 've played clicks to pron , is it now only 1 click from disney.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a long while since I've played clicks to pron, is it now only 1 click from disney.com?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</id>
	<title>This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating "your rights online" when it is nothing of the sort.</p><p>The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers.  What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.</p><p>This is just another non-issue.  The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating " your rights online " when it is nothing of the sort.The fact is , a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers .
What they do n't stock is really none of your business , and if you do n't like , take your products and have someone else carry it.This is just another non-issue .
The problem with Apple is that they are too successful , they need to keep out the riff raff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating "your rights online" when it is nothing of the sort.The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers.
What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.This is just another non-issue.
The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247600</id>
	<title>This is censorship.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1266953280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that us nerds love our legalism and our precise definitions, but sometime we need to get real and think about what is actually going on.  Apple is a large, powerful company.  They manage the largest online app store, and the rule over it with an iron fist.  They remove apps simply because they compete with their own, and they remove content which they consider to be objectionable.</p><p>Legally, you are correct.  They are well within their legal rights, and they are not a branch of the government.  However, just because something is legally right does not mean it is fair, or just, or reasonable, or good in any way.  Moreover, corporations like apple are made possible through legal constructions that are only possible due to governmental authority.  And, companies like Apple do things like this to maintain favor with the government (for example, it has been suggested that Apple is doing this to drum up educational support for their iPad, Schools are almost entirely governmental organizations).</p><p>What I am really trying to say here is that in tunnel-vision legalism land, this is not censorship.  However, in the real world, which we all are actually living in, it most definitely is censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that us nerds love our legalism and our precise definitions , but sometime we need to get real and think about what is actually going on .
Apple is a large , powerful company .
They manage the largest online app store , and the rule over it with an iron fist .
They remove apps simply because they compete with their own , and they remove content which they consider to be objectionable.Legally , you are correct .
They are well within their legal rights , and they are not a branch of the government .
However , just because something is legally right does not mean it is fair , or just , or reasonable , or good in any way .
Moreover , corporations like apple are made possible through legal constructions that are only possible due to governmental authority .
And , companies like Apple do things like this to maintain favor with the government ( for example , it has been suggested that Apple is doing this to drum up educational support for their iPad , Schools are almost entirely governmental organizations ) .What I am really trying to say here is that in tunnel-vision legalism land , this is not censorship .
However , in the real world , which we all are actually living in , it most definitely is censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that us nerds love our legalism and our precise definitions, but sometime we need to get real and think about what is actually going on.
Apple is a large, powerful company.
They manage the largest online app store, and the rule over it with an iron fist.
They remove apps simply because they compete with their own, and they remove content which they consider to be objectionable.Legally, you are correct.
They are well within their legal rights, and they are not a branch of the government.
However, just because something is legally right does not mean it is fair, or just, or reasonable, or good in any way.
Moreover, corporations like apple are made possible through legal constructions that are only possible due to governmental authority.
And, companies like Apple do things like this to maintain favor with the government (for example, it has been suggested that Apple is doing this to drum up educational support for their iPad, Schools are almost entirely governmental organizations).What I am really trying to say here is that in tunnel-vision legalism land, this is not censorship.
However, in the real world, which we all are actually living in, it most definitely is censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248320</id>
	<title>It's not the apps that are the problem!</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1266955860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's AppStore's complete lack of filtering and sorting capabilities.</p><p>have you ever try to actually find an application?</p><p>Search by keyword only--no sort by anything. No filter by anything.</p><p>Browse by top 100 or by date--no sort by anything. No filter by anything.</p><p>Categiries are a start, but come on Apple, why can't we search WITHIN a category? This is really basic stuff.</p><p>Or are people so swayed by the "Top paid" and "Top free" apps that anything not on those lists are simply not important to Apple?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's AppStore 's complete lack of filtering and sorting capabilities.have you ever try to actually find an application ? Search by keyword only--no sort by anything .
No filter by anything.Browse by top 100 or by date--no sort by anything .
No filter by anything.Categiries are a start , but come on Apple , why ca n't we search WITHIN a category ?
This is really basic stuff.Or are people so swayed by the " Top paid " and " Top free " apps that anything not on those lists are simply not important to Apple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's AppStore's complete lack of filtering and sorting capabilities.have you ever try to actually find an application?Search by keyword only--no sort by anything.
No filter by anything.Browse by top 100 or by date--no sort by anything.
No filter by anything.Categiries are a start, but come on Apple, why can't we search WITHIN a category?
This is really basic stuff.Or are people so swayed by the "Top paid" and "Top free" apps that anything not on those lists are simply not important to Apple?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247432</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>drougie</author>
	<datestamp>1266952680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>always appreciate your go-there humor, grub</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>always appreciate your go-there humor , grub</tokentext>
<sentencetext>always appreciate your go-there humor, grub</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247382</id>
	<title>ReConsumer rights...</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1266952500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property? Their rights trump Apple's in every moral sense.</i></p></div></blockquote><p>
Consumer rights don't trump anything when the consumer knows fully well going into a contract that the are prohibited from doing "what they want" with their DRMed phones.
</p><p>
Sorry, but if you don't want that kind of control placed on you, just don't buy it. You can complain all you want that the iPhone is wildly popular and therefore should be open to anything, but that's not how Apple works, not is it how it has ever worked.
</p><p>
An informed consumer is a good consumer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property ?
Their rights trump Apple 's in every moral sense .
Consumer rights do n't trump anything when the consumer knows fully well going into a contract that the are prohibited from doing " what they want " with their DRMed phones .
Sorry , but if you do n't want that kind of control placed on you , just do n't buy it .
You can complain all you want that the iPhone is wildly popular and therefore should be open to anything , but that 's not how Apple works , not is it how it has ever worked .
An informed consumer is a good consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property?
Their rights trump Apple's in every moral sense.
Consumer rights don't trump anything when the consumer knows fully well going into a contract that the are prohibited from doing "what they want" with their DRMed phones.
Sorry, but if you don't want that kind of control placed on you, just don't buy it.
You can complain all you want that the iPhone is wildly popular and therefore should be open to anything, but that's not how Apple works, not is it how it has ever worked.
An informed consumer is a good consumer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31261348</id>
	<title>Apple responds! New category! "Explicit"!</title>
	<author>WebManWalking</author>
	<datestamp>1265134980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/24/apple\_creates\_explicit\_category\_for\_app\_store\_software.html" title="appleinsider.com">http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/24/apple\_creates\_explicit\_category\_for\_app\_store\_software.html</a> [appleinsider.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/24/apple \ _creates \ _explicit \ _category \ _for \ _app \ _store \ _software.html [ appleinsider.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/24/apple\_creates\_explicit\_category\_for\_app\_store\_software.html [appleinsider.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252266</id>
	<title>Maybe this is a way out of buying the iphone</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1266926940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this is a way out of buying the iphone/ ATT contract,they used the famous bait and switch tactic. They allowed nudes,porn until they had a huge market share then they decide to remove the porno,nudes</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is a way out of buying the iphone/ ATT contract,they used the famous bait and switch tactic .
They allowed nudes,porn until they had a huge market share then they decide to remove the porno,nudes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is a way out of buying the iphone/ ATT contract,they used the famous bait and switch tactic.
They allowed nudes,porn until they had a huge market share then they decide to remove the porno,nudes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</id>
	<title>Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <i>Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset</i> <br> <br> Shoot.<br> <br>
Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of <b>VirtualCunt</b>.
<br> <br>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple Bans Sexy Apps , Developers Upset Shoot .
Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset   Shoot.
Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247284</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1266952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be operating under the delusion that only governments can engage in censorship. Call it whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but what Apple is doing is effectively the same as censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be operating under the delusion that only governments can engage in censorship .
Call it whatever you like if it makes you feel better , but what Apple is doing is effectively the same as censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be operating under the delusion that only governments can engage in censorship.
Call it whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but what Apple is doing is effectively the same as censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250164</id>
	<title>Genius</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266918900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they don't stock is really none of your business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they do n't stock is really none of your business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they don't stock is really none of your business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246980</id>
	<title>Isn't that the point?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1266951120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there. On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible."</p></div><p>
Well, yeah. That's kind of the point.  The things they can't control, they're making no attempt to control.  However, they *can* control the contents of the store - and so they do, in order to appeal to their largest customer base.  Time will tell if it's the right move; but you can't cry censorship when you agree to purchase a device whose sole gateway to applications is what is officially sanctioned by that device's creator.  You sign away the right to control your user experience when you agree that they have control via the appstore. If you don't like it, don't buy the device until they change it; or buy it and jailbreak it (but be aware of the consequences as well).
</p><p>
Apple is fully within their rights to decide they want the appstore to sell ONLY applications designed for people age 8 and under.  You know it when you buy the device (and if you don't, isn't that your responsibility too? being educated about your purchases?).  App developers agree to it when they obtain the license that allow them to develop for the devices.   You always have the choice to go with a different product.  (Such as blackberry... no restrictions on what you can install, tens of thousands of compatible j2me apps. They have an appworld that's growing daily, but you're not required to use it to install software.  I believe Android fits this bill too? )
</p><p>
A company that is exercising the rights that its customers and developers willingly cede to it is not censorship.

</p><p>
Commence downmodding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
It 's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they do n't have any kind of web browser on there .
On the internet , you 're never more than one click away from something horrible .
" Well , yeah .
That 's kind of the point .
The things they ca n't control , they 're making no attempt to control .
However , they * can * control the contents of the store - and so they do , in order to appeal to their largest customer base .
Time will tell if it 's the right move ; but you ca n't cry censorship when you agree to purchase a device whose sole gateway to applications is what is officially sanctioned by that device 's creator .
You sign away the right to control your user experience when you agree that they have control via the appstore .
If you do n't like it , do n't buy the device until they change it ; or buy it and jailbreak it ( but be aware of the consequences as well ) .
Apple is fully within their rights to decide they want the appstore to sell ONLY applications designed for people age 8 and under .
You know it when you buy the device ( and if you do n't , is n't that your responsibility too ?
being educated about your purchases ? ) .
App developers agree to it when they obtain the license that allow them to develop for the devices .
You always have the choice to go with a different product .
( Such as blackberry... no restrictions on what you can install , tens of thousands of compatible j2me apps .
They have an appworld that 's growing daily , but you 're not required to use it to install software .
I believe Android fits this bill too ?
) A company that is exercising the rights that its customers and developers willingly cede to it is not censorship .
Commence downmodding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there.
On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.
"
Well, yeah.
That's kind of the point.
The things they can't control, they're making no attempt to control.
However, they *can* control the contents of the store - and so they do, in order to appeal to their largest customer base.
Time will tell if it's the right move; but you can't cry censorship when you agree to purchase a device whose sole gateway to applications is what is officially sanctioned by that device's creator.
You sign away the right to control your user experience when you agree that they have control via the appstore.
If you don't like it, don't buy the device until they change it; or buy it and jailbreak it (but be aware of the consequences as well).
Apple is fully within their rights to decide they want the appstore to sell ONLY applications designed for people age 8 and under.
You know it when you buy the device (and if you don't, isn't that your responsibility too?
being educated about your purchases?).
App developers agree to it when they obtain the license that allow them to develop for the devices.
You always have the choice to go with a different product.
(Such as blackberry... no restrictions on what you can install, tens of thousands of compatible j2me apps.
They have an appworld that's growing daily, but you're not required to use it to install software.
I believe Android fits this bill too?
)

A company that is exercising the rights that its customers and developers willingly cede to it is not censorship.
Commence downmodding.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249282</id>
	<title>just more evil from a parasitic company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266958680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my perspective, Apple is completely wormy. The people running it, imho, are greedy unethical cheaters who have corrupted the market and the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective , Apple is completely wormy .
The people running it , imho , are greedy unethical cheaters who have corrupted the market and the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective, Apple is completely wormy.
The people running it, imho, are greedy unethical cheaters who have corrupted the market and the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31253546</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>Macfox</author>
	<datestamp>1266932940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry your app was reject for being too heterosexual.</p><p><i>Made in California</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry your app was reject for being too heterosexual.Made in California</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry your app was reject for being too heterosexual.Made in California</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246760</id>
	<title>Degradation or women??</title>
	<author>desertjedi85</author>
	<datestamp>1266950400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I checked Sports Illustrated isn't trafficking women forcing them to pose in swimsuits.  These women make their own choice to pose for these thing.  Just because some conservative women don't like it who cares.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked Sports Illustrated is n't trafficking women forcing them to pose in swimsuits .
These women make their own choice to pose for these thing .
Just because some conservative women do n't like it who cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked Sports Illustrated isn't trafficking women forcing them to pose in swimsuits.
These women make their own choice to pose for these thing.
Just because some conservative women don't like it who cares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247684</id>
	<title>Re:Developers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it's easier to rationalize Apple's move if you denigrate those being affected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's easier to rationalize Apple 's move if you denigrate those being affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's easier to rationalize Apple's move if you denigrate those being affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31257084</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't that the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265106480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like Microsoft was fully in their rights to include Internet Explorer with Windows effectively ruining Netscape.</p><p>Oh wait... nevermind there was an anti-trust lawsuit and now the government has lawyers inspect every move the company makes, as per the settlement agreement.  I guess only some companies can do what ever they want with things they own, and others can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Microsoft was fully in their rights to include Internet Explorer with Windows effectively ruining Netscape.Oh wait... nevermind there was an anti-trust lawsuit and now the government has lawyers inspect every move the company makes , as per the settlement agreement .
I guess only some companies can do what ever they want with things they own , and others ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Microsoft was fully in their rights to include Internet Explorer with Windows effectively ruining Netscape.Oh wait... nevermind there was an anti-trust lawsuit and now the government has lawyers inspect every move the company makes, as per the settlement agreement.
I guess only some companies can do what ever they want with things they own, and others can't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247006</id>
	<title>Wow 2 /. stories - Freedom vs. Control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm amused by the juxtaposition of the last two slashdot stories.</p><p>Google has too much freedom in its Android software development efforts resulting in confusion and developers being upset.</p><p>Apple has too much control in its App store policy resulting in confusion and developers being upset.</p><p>Ok, the emotions are a little different in each case but you gotta admit, these two stories highlight the main difference (to developers at least) between the Google and Apple way of doing things!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amused by the juxtaposition of the last two slashdot stories.Google has too much freedom in its Android software development efforts resulting in confusion and developers being upset.Apple has too much control in its App store policy resulting in confusion and developers being upset.Ok , the emotions are a little different in each case but you got ta admit , these two stories highlight the main difference ( to developers at least ) between the Google and Apple way of doing things !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amused by the juxtaposition of the last two slashdot stories.Google has too much freedom in its Android software development efforts resulting in confusion and developers being upset.Apple has too much control in its App store policy resulting in confusion and developers being upset.Ok, the emotions are a little different in each case but you gotta admit, these two stories highlight the main difference (to developers at least) between the Google and Apple way of doing things!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247342</id>
	<title>Re:Developers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>has anybody a copy of that one with goats yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>has anybody a copy of that one with goats yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has anybody a copy of that one with goats yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252182</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266926520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you walk into a bar and their jukebox doesn't have the song you're looking for, do you start complaining about censorship? It's the same fucking thing --- you don't like their selection, you go somewhere else.</p><p>I hate it when people make words less meaningful by distorting, devaluing, and abusing the use of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you walk into a bar and their jukebox does n't have the song you 're looking for , do you start complaining about censorship ?
It 's the same fucking thing --- you do n't like their selection , you go somewhere else.I hate it when people make words less meaningful by distorting , devaluing , and abusing the use of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you walk into a bar and their jukebox doesn't have the song you're looking for, do you start complaining about censorship?
It's the same fucking thing --- you don't like their selection, you go somewhere else.I hate it when people make words less meaningful by distorting, devaluing, and abusing the use of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246568</id>
	<title>Free boobs.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1266949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who downloaded "Free Boobs" you can find more scantily clad women in a sears catalog...</p><p>app delete.</p><p>Besides, that is what your browser is for you lazy app using sods!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who downloaded " Free Boobs " you can find more scantily clad women in a sears catalog...app delete.Besides , that is what your browser is for you lazy app using sods !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who downloaded "Free Boobs" you can find more scantily clad women in a sears catalog...app delete.Besides, that is what your browser is for you lazy app using sods!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247840</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>siloko</author>
	<datestamp>1266954120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.</p></div><p>Don't give up hope yet, a quick refactor to <i>iCunt</i> should get it past the censors . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.Do n't give up hope yet , a quick refactor to iCunt should get it past the censors .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.Don't give up hope yet, a quick refactor to iCunt should get it past the censors .
. .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247054</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the issue is not that they are "censoring" or exercising their right to control products in their storefront, but that 1) they are doing so in a way that is anticompetitive, favoring Playboy and Sports Illustrated over smaller brands, 2) they allowed developers to build businesses around products, probably in some cases hiring employees and making other significant decisions thinking that they could sell these products because Apple had approved them (while this isn't necessarily immoral or wrong, it's arbitrary and capricious and of course will make some developers lose trust in Apple's system), and of course 3) Apple has set themselves up as the sole supplier of apps for this platform, so the user has no ability to go to another source to choose to get the kind of "mature" content they want - your only choice, if this kind of content matters to you, is to chuck your device out the window and go to a competitor's products - the problem is some people may have invested money and signed contracts with companies based on the (probably misplaced) expectation that they had some freedom about what sort of apps they could install on their phones.</p><p>In the end, this is the whining of certain puritanical segments dictating the availability of products that cannot, by their nature, be sold through any other venue.  That's a bad thing to many of us, regardless of whether the content is particularly meritorious or has other near substitutes (if it's just a slideshow of boobies, presumably you can get that on the web all you want, but with this many apps banned, there are surely some things that aren't completely replaceable with some web surfing).</p><p>Posting anon since I've modded in this story.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue is not that they are " censoring " or exercising their right to control products in their storefront , but that 1 ) they are doing so in a way that is anticompetitive , favoring Playboy and Sports Illustrated over smaller brands , 2 ) they allowed developers to build businesses around products , probably in some cases hiring employees and making other significant decisions thinking that they could sell these products because Apple had approved them ( while this is n't necessarily immoral or wrong , it 's arbitrary and capricious and of course will make some developers lose trust in Apple 's system ) , and of course 3 ) Apple has set themselves up as the sole supplier of apps for this platform , so the user has no ability to go to another source to choose to get the kind of " mature " content they want - your only choice , if this kind of content matters to you , is to chuck your device out the window and go to a competitor 's products - the problem is some people may have invested money and signed contracts with companies based on the ( probably misplaced ) expectation that they had some freedom about what sort of apps they could install on their phones.In the end , this is the whining of certain puritanical segments dictating the availability of products that can not , by their nature , be sold through any other venue .
That 's a bad thing to many of us , regardless of whether the content is particularly meritorious or has other near substitutes ( if it 's just a slideshow of boobies , presumably you can get that on the web all you want , but with this many apps banned , there are surely some things that are n't completely replaceable with some web surfing ) .Posting anon since I 've modded in this story .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue is not that they are "censoring" or exercising their right to control products in their storefront, but that 1) they are doing so in a way that is anticompetitive, favoring Playboy and Sports Illustrated over smaller brands, 2) they allowed developers to build businesses around products, probably in some cases hiring employees and making other significant decisions thinking that they could sell these products because Apple had approved them (while this isn't necessarily immoral or wrong, it's arbitrary and capricious and of course will make some developers lose trust in Apple's system), and of course 3) Apple has set themselves up as the sole supplier of apps for this platform, so the user has no ability to go to another source to choose to get the kind of "mature" content they want - your only choice, if this kind of content matters to you, is to chuck your device out the window and go to a competitor's products - the problem is some people may have invested money and signed contracts with companies based on the (probably misplaced) expectation that they had some freedom about what sort of apps they could install on their phones.In the end, this is the whining of certain puritanical segments dictating the availability of products that cannot, by their nature, be sold through any other venue.
That's a bad thing to many of us, regardless of whether the content is particularly meritorious or has other near substitutes (if it's just a slideshow of boobies, presumably you can get that on the web all you want, but with this many apps banned, there are surely some things that aren't completely replaceable with some web surfing).Posting anon since I've modded in this story.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246544</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1266949680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess axing ~5,000 applications is easier than building a more effective and granular per-device rating setting system...<br> <br>

Lazier, though, a lot lazier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess axing ~ 5,000 applications is easier than building a more effective and granular per-device rating setting system.. . Lazier , though , a lot lazier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess axing ~5,000 applications is easier than building a more effective and granular per-device rating setting system... 

Lazier, though, a lot lazier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31254338</id>
	<title>Apple is not being honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266937800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are claiming they banned these apps because of complaints by women. I call bullshit - when has a big company ever restrained itself to try to avoid hurting women? If Apple was sincere, Playboy would never have gotten in the door, much less be allowed to stay after the "purge." Women are just convenient scapegoats to be a target for all the angry whining from the frustrated fappers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are claiming they banned these apps because of complaints by women .
I call bullshit - when has a big company ever restrained itself to try to avoid hurting women ?
If Apple was sincere , Playboy would never have gotten in the door , much less be allowed to stay after the " purge .
" Women are just convenient scapegoats to be a target for all the angry whining from the frustrated fappers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are claiming they banned these apps because of complaints by women.
I call bullshit - when has a big company ever restrained itself to try to avoid hurting women?
If Apple was sincere, Playboy would never have gotten in the door, much less be allowed to stay after the "purge.
" Women are just convenient scapegoats to be a target for all the angry whining from the frustrated fappers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247030</id>
	<title>So let's call it censorship, then.</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1266951300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
I'd say taking down a best seller App based on its "Risque-ness" is censorship, any way you want to slice it.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
So let's call it censorship, then.
</p><p>
Doesn't really matter.  Once you buy into their single point of sale ecosystem, you're buying into their censorship.  They have the right to do as they see fit with <b>their</b> storefront.
</p><p>
Don't like it?  There are other options.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say taking down a best seller App based on its " Risque-ness " is censorship , any way you want to slice it .
So let 's call it censorship , then .
Does n't really matter .
Once you buy into their single point of sale ecosystem , you 're buying into their censorship .
They have the right to do as they see fit with their storefront .
Do n't like it ?
There are other options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
I'd say taking down a best seller App based on its "Risque-ness" is censorship, any way you want to slice it.
So let's call it censorship, then.
Doesn't really matter.
Once you buy into their single point of sale ecosystem, you're buying into their censorship.
They have the right to do as they see fit with their storefront.
Don't like it?
There are other options.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246558</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Troll? Humorless mods. Tag this story "VirtualCunt" !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll ?
Humorless mods .
Tag this story " VirtualCunt " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll?
Humorless mods.
Tag this story "VirtualCunt" !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247230</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can do whatever the hell you want with your iPhone.  Make it a doorstop or a suppository. Apple is under no obligation to sell apps that you want.  You're under no obligation to buy an iPhone or even to not jailbreak the one you have.</p><p>Here's a belabored car analogy:  Ford is under no obligation to sell truck balls.  Even if they were to start selling them, they could stop at any time.  They can even void your warranty if you attach third-party truck balls.  Don't like it?  Don't buy a Ford or take complete responsibility for the machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do whatever the hell you want with your iPhone .
Make it a doorstop or a suppository .
Apple is under no obligation to sell apps that you want .
You 're under no obligation to buy an iPhone or even to not jailbreak the one you have.Here 's a belabored car analogy : Ford is under no obligation to sell truck balls .
Even if they were to start selling them , they could stop at any time .
They can even void your warranty if you attach third-party truck balls .
Do n't like it ?
Do n't buy a Ford or take complete responsibility for the machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do whatever the hell you want with your iPhone.
Make it a doorstop or a suppository.
Apple is under no obligation to sell apps that you want.
You're under no obligation to buy an iPhone or even to not jailbreak the one you have.Here's a belabored car analogy:  Ford is under no obligation to sell truck balls.
Even if they were to start selling them, they could stop at any time.
They can even void your warranty if you attach third-party truck balls.
Don't like it?
Don't buy a Ford or take complete responsibility for the machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247894</id>
	<title>Degrading?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266954300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My observation is that the only people who bitch about images of barely-dressed hot women, are the ugly cows nobody wants to see anyway. They're just jealous and would gladly run about naked if they had a comparable body in which to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My observation is that the only people who bitch about images of barely-dressed hot women , are the ugly cows nobody wants to see anyway .
They 're just jealous and would gladly run about naked if they had a comparable body in which to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My observation is that the only people who bitch about images of barely-dressed hot women, are the ugly cows nobody wants to see anyway.
They're just jealous and would gladly run about naked if they had a comparable body in which to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249184</id>
	<title>Safari?</title>
	<author>ZeRu</author>
	<datestamp>1266958320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't they also ban Safari? You can view images of boobs on that, too. How unthoughtful of them not to do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't they also ban Safari ?
You can view images of boobs on that , too .
How unthoughtful of them not to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't they also ban Safari?
You can view images of boobs on that, too.
How unthoughtful of them not to do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247220</id>
	<title>Well, shoot</title>
	<author>jspenguin1</author>
	<datestamp>1266951960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There goes my plan to port <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer's\_Revenge" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Custer's Revenge</a> [wikipedia.org] to the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes my plan to port Custer 's Revenge [ wikipedia.org ] to the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There goes my plan to port Custer's Revenge [wikipedia.org] to the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247170</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>S.O.B.</author>
	<datestamp>1266951780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers. What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>And exactly what store should they get to carry their iPhone/iPod app?  Oh yeah, the Apple app store is <b>the only</b> store where iPhone/iPod users get their apps.</p><p>If iPhone/iPod users had an alternative store to buy apps then this would be a non-issue as you put it.  However, since Apple is being very Microsofty in the lock-in of customers to their app store this is an unfair action against an app that they had no problem carrying when they were building their market but is deemed "inappropriate" now that Apple has established their captive customer base.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers .
What they do n't stock is really none of your business , and if you do n't like , take your products and have someone else carry it .
And exactly what store should they get to carry their iPhone/iPod app ?
Oh yeah , the Apple app store is the only store where iPhone/iPod users get their apps.If iPhone/iPod users had an alternative store to buy apps then this would be a non-issue as you put it .
However , since Apple is being very Microsofty in the lock-in of customers to their app store this is an unfair action against an app that they had no problem carrying when they were building their market but is deemed " inappropriate " now that Apple has established their captive customer base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers.
What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.
And exactly what store should they get to carry their iPhone/iPod app?
Oh yeah, the Apple app store is the only store where iPhone/iPod users get their apps.If iPhone/iPod users had an alternative store to buy apps then this would be a non-issue as you put it.
However, since Apple is being very Microsofty in the lock-in of customers to their app store this is an unfair action against an app that they had no problem carrying when they were building their market but is deemed "inappropriate" now that Apple has established their captive customer base.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251502</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1266923640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it censhorshop that Walmart does not cell cars? Is it censhorship that Verizon does not sell the Nokia n2613? Is it censorship that Fox doesn't have ads for Lost? Is everything censorship?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it censhorshop that Walmart does not cell cars ?
Is it censhorship that Verizon does not sell the Nokia n2613 ?
Is it censorship that Fox does n't have ads for Lost ?
Is everything censorship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it censhorshop that Walmart does not cell cars?
Is it censhorship that Verizon does not sell the Nokia n2613?
Is it censorship that Fox doesn't have ads for Lost?
Is everything censorship?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247234</id>
	<title>Are you kidding</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1266952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it more degrading to women to have them viewed as massive bitch's because certain women feel the need to bitch about everything including the sun.   My GF even agrees women get a bad rap because other women feel the need to complain when they could just go along with it.  After all have you heard of men complaining that topless men are degrading, of course not, after all were rational.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it more degrading to women to have them viewed as massive bitch 's because certain women feel the need to bitch about everything including the sun .
My GF even agrees women get a bad rap because other women feel the need to complain when they could just go along with it .
After all have you heard of men complaining that topless men are degrading , of course not , after all were rational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it more degrading to women to have them viewed as massive bitch's because certain women feel the need to bitch about everything including the sun.
My GF even agrees women get a bad rap because other women feel the need to complain when they could just go along with it.
After all have you heard of men complaining that topless men are degrading, of course not, after all were rational.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247184</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266951840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't really consider any censorship "evil" in that regard, as most of it is done with "Good intentions".</p><p>I mean, to think that censoring internet sites is a violation of Free Speech is stretching your rights so much that you could think that Apple removing an App from their store is just as valid of being called Censorship.</p><p>What - the only difference is that one is a private company doing it for their own interests? It's their product?</p><p>So - in the same light, Internet Service Providers (being a private company and all) filtering searches for their own interests (friends with the gov't) is not "evil censorship" at all.</p><p>I think we've just blurred the lines and created so many double standards that we need to redefine censorship - or start applying the rules properly - or drop them altogether. I haven't decided which of those 3 would be the worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't really consider any censorship " evil " in that regard , as most of it is done with " Good intentions " .I mean , to think that censoring internet sites is a violation of Free Speech is stretching your rights so much that you could think that Apple removing an App from their store is just as valid of being called Censorship.What - the only difference is that one is a private company doing it for their own interests ?
It 's their product ? So - in the same light , Internet Service Providers ( being a private company and all ) filtering searches for their own interests ( friends with the gov't ) is not " evil censorship " at all.I think we 've just blurred the lines and created so many double standards that we need to redefine censorship - or start applying the rules properly - or drop them altogether .
I have n't decided which of those 3 would be the worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't really consider any censorship "evil" in that regard, as most of it is done with "Good intentions".I mean, to think that censoring internet sites is a violation of Free Speech is stretching your rights so much that you could think that Apple removing an App from their store is just as valid of being called Censorship.What - the only difference is that one is a private company doing it for their own interests?
It's their product?So - in the same light, Internet Service Providers (being a private company and all) filtering searches for their own interests (friends with the gov't) is not "evil censorship" at all.I think we've just blurred the lines and created so many double standards that we need to redefine censorship - or start applying the rules properly - or drop them altogether.
I haven't decided which of those 3 would be the worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247380</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that cell phone companies are government-created monopolies.  And those government-created monopolies are tying their products to specific manufacturers.  Then the manufacturers are not stocking certain products.</p><p>For example, suppose I want to buy my iPhone software from another app store... oh, there is no other app store for iPhones.  Well fine!  Suppose I want an Android phone instead... oh, AT&amp;T doesn't sell Android phones.  Well fine! I'll cancel my contract and move to another provi... oh, there are no other providers in my service area.  Well fine!  I'll just make my own phone... oh, I can't: that requires government approval.</p><p>Using your original analogy, it would be like the government only allowing Super Shop stores in my area.  And Super Shop refuses to carry beans.  And if I go and buy beans from somewhere else, as soon as I enter the Super Shop! area of town my beans stop working because they aren't Super Shop approved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that cell phone companies are government-created monopolies .
And those government-created monopolies are tying their products to specific manufacturers .
Then the manufacturers are not stocking certain products.For example , suppose I want to buy my iPhone software from another app store... oh , there is no other app store for iPhones .
Well fine !
Suppose I want an Android phone instead... oh , AT&amp;T does n't sell Android phones .
Well fine !
I 'll cancel my contract and move to another provi... oh , there are no other providers in my service area .
Well fine !
I 'll just make my own phone... oh , I ca n't : that requires government approval.Using your original analogy , it would be like the government only allowing Super Shop stores in my area .
And Super Shop refuses to carry beans .
And if I go and buy beans from somewhere else , as soon as I enter the Super Shop !
area of town my beans stop working because they are n't Super Shop approved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that cell phone companies are government-created monopolies.
And those government-created monopolies are tying their products to specific manufacturers.
Then the manufacturers are not stocking certain products.For example, suppose I want to buy my iPhone software from another app store... oh, there is no other app store for iPhones.
Well fine!
Suppose I want an Android phone instead... oh, AT&amp;T doesn't sell Android phones.
Well fine!
I'll cancel my contract and move to another provi... oh, there are no other providers in my service area.
Well fine!
I'll just make my own phone... oh, I can't: that requires government approval.Using your original analogy, it would be like the government only allowing Super Shop stores in my area.
And Super Shop refuses to carry beans.
And if I go and buy beans from somewhere else, as soon as I enter the Super Shop!
area of town my beans stop working because they aren't Super Shop approved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247210</id>
	<title>Apple's Mistake</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1266951960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's mistake was in failing to make the App Store restrictive ENOUGH.  What they should have done (and what Google should be doing for Android) is build a two tier system.  The lower tier is basically just hosting - anything goes.  Set up a rating system and a popularity count, but don't bother with approving anything.  The top tier should be a heavily restricted best-of-breed catalog built of submissions, highly rated and highly popular apps from the lower tier manually reviewed and copied over by Apple, and (because they can't help themselves) apps from their beloved corporate partners.</p><p>That scheme would have given them the flexibility to accept everything that makes an open computing platform great, while providing the quality filter that Apple allegedly builds its brand on.  "Young Boobs" and the other 40 variants of image-viewer-app-with-embedded-image-catalog can go in the lower tier, get highly rated by 14 year old boys and heavily downloaded by men ages 9 to 90, and Apple needn't bother to consider it for promotion to the upper tier.  Meanwhile quality, useful applications get promoted and get far greater visibility.</p><p>To sweeten the deal and actively encourage quality, give developers who get admitted to the upper tier a larger cut of the income, for those apps that charge money.</p><p>Too late now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's mistake was in failing to make the App Store restrictive ENOUGH .
What they should have done ( and what Google should be doing for Android ) is build a two tier system .
The lower tier is basically just hosting - anything goes .
Set up a rating system and a popularity count , but do n't bother with approving anything .
The top tier should be a heavily restricted best-of-breed catalog built of submissions , highly rated and highly popular apps from the lower tier manually reviewed and copied over by Apple , and ( because they ca n't help themselves ) apps from their beloved corporate partners.That scheme would have given them the flexibility to accept everything that makes an open computing platform great , while providing the quality filter that Apple allegedly builds its brand on .
" Young Boobs " and the other 40 variants of image-viewer-app-with-embedded-image-catalog can go in the lower tier , get highly rated by 14 year old boys and heavily downloaded by men ages 9 to 90 , and Apple need n't bother to consider it for promotion to the upper tier .
Meanwhile quality , useful applications get promoted and get far greater visibility.To sweeten the deal and actively encourage quality , give developers who get admitted to the upper tier a larger cut of the income , for those apps that charge money.Too late now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's mistake was in failing to make the App Store restrictive ENOUGH.
What they should have done (and what Google should be doing for Android) is build a two tier system.
The lower tier is basically just hosting - anything goes.
Set up a rating system and a popularity count, but don't bother with approving anything.
The top tier should be a heavily restricted best-of-breed catalog built of submissions, highly rated and highly popular apps from the lower tier manually reviewed and copied over by Apple, and (because they can't help themselves) apps from their beloved corporate partners.That scheme would have given them the flexibility to accept everything that makes an open computing platform great, while providing the quality filter that Apple allegedly builds its brand on.
"Young Boobs" and the other 40 variants of image-viewer-app-with-embedded-image-catalog can go in the lower tier, get highly rated by 14 year old boys and heavily downloaded by men ages 9 to 90, and Apple needn't bother to consider it for promotion to the upper tier.
Meanwhile quality, useful applications get promoted and get far greater visibility.To sweeten the deal and actively encourage quality, give developers who get admitted to the upper tier a larger cut of the income, for those apps that charge money.Too late now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252240</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>DarkHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1266926820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as someone who works in the adult industry, I don't even know why this matters all that much.<br>It's not as if there's a browser within the damn iPhone and iPad.  It's not as if it isn't possible to create an interface for your website that matches or surpasses what you can get out of an app.  For my adult product, I've already done that.</p><p>All people want to do here is to view pictures and videos.  It's nothing that requires native coding.</p><p>So you can't use Apple's payment processing system to sell porn to people?  So cunting what?  It's Apple's choice whether or not they want to have it on their store.</p><p>And while we're at it, a large percentage of the apps (my guess is over 40\% of them) that are on the app store *can* be done via the web with the same level of effectiveness.  The app store is an easy way to advertise and an easy way to bill for the functionality you're offering.</p><p>In fact, I wish there was *less* of the kind of apps that could have been done via the web.</p><p>As someone who a) sells software that's porn related and b) owns an iPhone, I'm not crying over this.  There's still plenty of money to be made.</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as someone who works in the adult industry , I do n't even know why this matters all that much.It 's not as if there 's a browser within the damn iPhone and iPad .
It 's not as if it is n't possible to create an interface for your website that matches or surpasses what you can get out of an app .
For my adult product , I 've already done that.All people want to do here is to view pictures and videos .
It 's nothing that requires native coding.So you ca n't use Apple 's payment processing system to sell porn to people ?
So cunting what ?
It 's Apple 's choice whether or not they want to have it on their store.And while we 're at it , a large percentage of the apps ( my guess is over 40 \ % of them ) that are on the app store * can * be done via the web with the same level of effectiveness .
The app store is an easy way to advertise and an easy way to bill for the functionality you 're offering.In fact , I wish there was * less * of the kind of apps that could have been done via the web.As someone who a ) sells software that 's porn related and b ) owns an iPhone , I 'm not crying over this .
There 's still plenty of money to be made.That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as someone who works in the adult industry, I don't even know why this matters all that much.It's not as if there's a browser within the damn iPhone and iPad.
It's not as if it isn't possible to create an interface for your website that matches or surpasses what you can get out of an app.
For my adult product, I've already done that.All people want to do here is to view pictures and videos.
It's nothing that requires native coding.So you can't use Apple's payment processing system to sell porn to people?
So cunting what?
It's Apple's choice whether or not they want to have it on their store.And while we're at it, a large percentage of the apps (my guess is over 40\% of them) that are on the app store *can* be done via the web with the same level of effectiveness.
The app store is an easy way to advertise and an easy way to bill for the functionality you're offering.In fact, I wish there was *less* of the kind of apps that could have been done via the web.As someone who a) sells software that's porn related and b) owns an iPhone, I'm not crying over this.
There's still plenty of money to be made.That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247228</id>
	<title>Burqa?</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1266952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the quote from the <a href="http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/23/apple-bans-most-but-not-all-sexy-apps/" title="cnn.com">CNN</a> [cnn.com] article:</p><blockquote><div><p>3. No skin (he seriously said this) (I asked if a Burqa was OK, and the Apple guy got angry)</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the quote from the CNN [ cnn.com ] article : 3 .
No skin ( he seriously said this ) ( I asked if a Burqa was OK , and the Apple guy got angry )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the quote from the CNN [cnn.com] article:3.
No skin (he seriously said this) (I asked if a Burqa was OK, and the Apple guy got angry)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249902</id>
	<title>If they want to appeal to educators...</title>
	<author>Dracil</author>
	<datestamp>1266917880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first thing they could do is not file a Creationism app under Education: <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/answers-in-genesis/id353046149?mt=8" title="apple.com">http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/answers-in-genesis/id353046149?mt=8</a> [apple.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing they could do is not file a Creationism app under Education : http : //itunes.apple.com/us/app/answers-in-genesis/id353046149 ? mt = 8 [ apple.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing they could do is not file a Creationism app under Education: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/answers-in-genesis/id353046149?mt=8 [apple.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249220</id>
	<title>You do as you're told, that's what you do.</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1266958500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>developers are up in arms?</p></div><p>Didn't you read the dozens of articles on the net about how Apple works with regards to The App Store? They're like Cohaagen in Total Recall, absolute rulers. It's their shit and they can fuck with you however they want in the most inconstent way they like and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.</p><p>Sorry, but you developers who get fucked over by Apple can just STFU. That's the risk you took when you went iPhone. Maybe you should have considered developing for a <a href="http://www.android.com/" title="android.com" rel="nofollow">more open OS</a> [android.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>developers are up in arms ? Did n't you read the dozens of articles on the net about how Apple works with regards to The App Store ?
They 're like Cohaagen in Total Recall , absolute rulers .
It 's their shit and they can fuck with you however they want in the most inconstent way they like and there 's absolutely nothing you can do about it.Sorry , but you developers who get fucked over by Apple can just STFU .
That 's the risk you took when you went iPhone .
Maybe you should have considered developing for a more open OS [ android.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>developers are up in arms?Didn't you read the dozens of articles on the net about how Apple works with regards to The App Store?
They're like Cohaagen in Total Recall, absolute rulers.
It's their shit and they can fuck with you however they want in the most inconstent way they like and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.Sorry, but you developers who get fucked over by Apple can just STFU.
That's the risk you took when you went iPhone.
Maybe you should have considered developing for a more open OS [android.com] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247004</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1266951180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it irksome that people have such an impoverished understanding of how censorship works.<br> <br>

Yes, the sort of censorship where a government bureaucrat with a slightly sinister mustache uses the threat of state violence to control your speech is the most extreme and severe form. And, if you simply must, you are free to assert that this is the only "true censorship". You can then go on to assert that anything else isn't "real" censorship, and anything that has some link to a contractual relationship, no matter how tenuous the link or adhesive the contract, is happy and voluntary and not at all censorship. Hurray, hurray!<br> <br>

However, and this part is important: Censorship is evil and dangerous in two distinct respects: The first is that it involves the illegitimate use(or threat of use) of violence for coercive ends. The second is that it distorts a society's flow of information in whatever direction is favored by the powerful and the incumbents. Since both democracies and free markets depend on informed actors, this is a major practical problem(and, of course, vibrant cultures arguably depend on the ability of individuals to express themselves without constraint).<br> <br>

It is true that the various forms of "censorship lite" practiced by the private sector(and some aspects of the public sector, through subtler than armed force means) possess relatively little of the first respect(though, unless you have ample resources, private sector use of lawsuits and contracts of adhesion to secure your silence can be unpleasantly close to coercive force). However, these forms of censorship possess the second respect to an enormous degree, likely greater than that of state censorship in all but the most repressive societies. The majority of controls over access to, and expression of, information faced by the people of any moderately free society are private sector. Many of them are, at least ostensibly, voluntary to some degree. Nevertheless, they have an effect.<br> <br>

Police-state censorship is evil; but dramatic and(in the more or less free world) relatively rare. The creeping death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the private sector, with its arbitration clauses, cryptographic controls, content filters, lawsuit threats, media ownership consolidation and so on and so forth is where the vast majority of information landscape distortion is happening. It is subtle, and most of it can be rationalized as "voluntary" with enough jesuitical hair-splitting about contracts; but that makes it no less dangerous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it irksome that people have such an impoverished understanding of how censorship works .
Yes , the sort of censorship where a government bureaucrat with a slightly sinister mustache uses the threat of state violence to control your speech is the most extreme and severe form .
And , if you simply must , you are free to assert that this is the only " true censorship " .
You can then go on to assert that anything else is n't " real " censorship , and anything that has some link to a contractual relationship , no matter how tenuous the link or adhesive the contract , is happy and voluntary and not at all censorship .
Hurray , hurray !
However , and this part is important : Censorship is evil and dangerous in two distinct respects : The first is that it involves the illegitimate use ( or threat of use ) of violence for coercive ends .
The second is that it distorts a society 's flow of information in whatever direction is favored by the powerful and the incumbents .
Since both democracies and free markets depend on informed actors , this is a major practical problem ( and , of course , vibrant cultures arguably depend on the ability of individuals to express themselves without constraint ) .
It is true that the various forms of " censorship lite " practiced by the private sector ( and some aspects of the public sector , through subtler than armed force means ) possess relatively little of the first respect ( though , unless you have ample resources , private sector use of lawsuits and contracts of adhesion to secure your silence can be unpleasantly close to coercive force ) .
However , these forms of censorship possess the second respect to an enormous degree , likely greater than that of state censorship in all but the most repressive societies .
The majority of controls over access to , and expression of , information faced by the people of any moderately free society are private sector .
Many of them are , at least ostensibly , voluntary to some degree .
Nevertheless , they have an effect .
Police-state censorship is evil ; but dramatic and ( in the more or less free world ) relatively rare .
The creeping death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the private sector , with its arbitration clauses , cryptographic controls , content filters , lawsuit threats , media ownership consolidation and so on and so forth is where the vast majority of information landscape distortion is happening .
It is subtle , and most of it can be rationalized as " voluntary " with enough jesuitical hair-splitting about contracts ; but that makes it no less dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it irksome that people have such an impoverished understanding of how censorship works.
Yes, the sort of censorship where a government bureaucrat with a slightly sinister mustache uses the threat of state violence to control your speech is the most extreme and severe form.
And, if you simply must, you are free to assert that this is the only "true censorship".
You can then go on to assert that anything else isn't "real" censorship, and anything that has some link to a contractual relationship, no matter how tenuous the link or adhesive the contract, is happy and voluntary and not at all censorship.
Hurray, hurray!
However, and this part is important: Censorship is evil and dangerous in two distinct respects: The first is that it involves the illegitimate use(or threat of use) of violence for coercive ends.
The second is that it distorts a society's flow of information in whatever direction is favored by the powerful and the incumbents.
Since both democracies and free markets depend on informed actors, this is a major practical problem(and, of course, vibrant cultures arguably depend on the ability of individuals to express themselves without constraint).
It is true that the various forms of "censorship lite" practiced by the private sector(and some aspects of the public sector, through subtler than armed force means) possess relatively little of the first respect(though, unless you have ample resources, private sector use of lawsuits and contracts of adhesion to secure your silence can be unpleasantly close to coercive force).
However, these forms of censorship possess the second respect to an enormous degree, likely greater than that of state censorship in all but the most repressive societies.
The majority of controls over access to, and expression of, information faced by the people of any moderately free society are private sector.
Many of them are, at least ostensibly, voluntary to some degree.
Nevertheless, they have an effect.
Police-state censorship is evil; but dramatic and(in the more or less free world) relatively rare.
The creeping death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the private sector, with its arbitration clauses, cryptographic controls, content filters, lawsuit threats, media ownership consolidation and so on and so forth is where the vast majority of information landscape distortion is happening.
It is subtle, and most of it can be rationalized as "voluntary" with enough jesuitical hair-splitting about contracts; but that makes it no less dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249490</id>
	<title>the real reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266916260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod me to flaming hell, but here is the real reason:</p><p>Apple cares about its image.  As a MOBILE platform, the iPhone was attracting too many sweaty, mouth-breathing baldies, an image with which Apple did not want to be tainted.</p><p>No, you are not going to "get" this comment.  It will stay at 0 or move to -1, troll.  However, it is the actual reason.  Oh, that and teenagers/preteens getting the iPhone from their gated-community living parents, who don't want them getting corrupted.  But it's mostly the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me to flaming hell , but here is the real reason : Apple cares about its image .
As a MOBILE platform , the iPhone was attracting too many sweaty , mouth-breathing baldies , an image with which Apple did not want to be tainted.No , you are not going to " get " this comment .
It will stay at 0 or move to -1 , troll .
However , it is the actual reason .
Oh , that and teenagers/preteens getting the iPhone from their gated-community living parents , who do n't want them getting corrupted .
But it 's mostly the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me to flaming hell, but here is the real reason:Apple cares about its image.
As a MOBILE platform, the iPhone was attracting too many sweaty, mouth-breathing baldies, an image with which Apple did not want to be tainted.No, you are not going to "get" this comment.
It will stay at 0 or move to -1, troll.
However, it is the actual reason.
Oh, that and teenagers/preteens getting the iPhone from their gated-community living parents, who don't want them getting corrupted.
But it's mostly the former.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247496</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1266952920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, if you presume an open, free market where there are competing devices with no artificial barriers to switching.  That's not what's going on.  Apple enjoys lock-in with both users and application vendors, who incur significant costs to have an iPhone or participate in the App Store respectively.  Apple is taking advantage of this lock-in to make up whatever rules it pleases.</p><p>And they have apparently decided that the iPhone is mainly for sexless lily-white puritans who pay for DRMed rap music.  Or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , if you presume an open , free market where there are competing devices with no artificial barriers to switching .
That 's not what 's going on .
Apple enjoys lock-in with both users and application vendors , who incur significant costs to have an iPhone or participate in the App Store respectively .
Apple is taking advantage of this lock-in to make up whatever rules it pleases.And they have apparently decided that the iPhone is mainly for sexless lily-white puritans who pay for DRMed rap music .
Or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, if you presume an open, free market where there are competing devices with no artificial barriers to switching.
That's not what's going on.
Apple enjoys lock-in with both users and application vendors, who incur significant costs to have an iPhone or participate in the App Store respectively.
Apple is taking advantage of this lock-in to make up whatever rules it pleases.And they have apparently decided that the iPhone is mainly for sexless lily-white puritans who pay for DRMed rap music.
Or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1266951420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property? Their rights trump Apple's in every moral sense. Apple is interfering with the transactions of third parties; it is only a twisted copyright law and mathematical locks that allow them to stick their nose where it doesn't belong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property ?
Their rights trump Apple 's in every moral sense .
Apple is interfering with the transactions of third parties ; it is only a twisted copyright law and mathematical locks that allow them to stick their nose where it does n't belong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the consumers right to determine what they can do with their property?
Their rights trump Apple's in every moral sense.
Apple is interfering with the transactions of third parties; it is only a twisted copyright law and mathematical locks that allow them to stick their nose where it doesn't belong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248890</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1266957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you were going to submit an app that presented a slideshow of famous feminists?<br>That shouldn't be a problym now that Apple (symbolyc of Eve) is a Wymynyst organization devoid of Penys weilding Neanderthals.<br>Let VirtualCunt free!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you were going to submit an app that presented a slideshow of famous feminists ? That should n't be a problym now that Apple ( symbolyc of Eve ) is a Wymynyst organization devoid of Penys weilding Neanderthals.Let VirtualCunt free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you were going to submit an app that presented a slideshow of famous feminists?That shouldn't be a problym now that Apple (symbolyc of Eve) is a Wymynyst organization devoid of Penys weilding Neanderthals.Let VirtualCunt free!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248402</id>
	<title>App Store</title>
	<author>Necrotica</author>
	<datestamp>1266956220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I strongly believe that Apple can sell whatever the heck they want from their app store. But the unfortunate thing is that there is apparently a market for these kinds of apps - and other kinds of "objectionable" apps as well, yet now there's no way to get them on people's phones legally. I suspect that those people who really want these apps will jailbreak their phones to get them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly believe that Apple can sell whatever the heck they want from their app store .
But the unfortunate thing is that there is apparently a market for these kinds of apps - and other kinds of " objectionable " apps as well , yet now there 's no way to get them on people 's phones legally .
I suspect that those people who really want these apps will jailbreak their phones to get them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly believe that Apple can sell whatever the heck they want from their app store.
But the unfortunate thing is that there is apparently a market for these kinds of apps - and other kinds of "objectionable" apps as well, yet now there's no way to get them on people's phones legally.
I suspect that those people who really want these apps will jailbreak their phones to get them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251046</id>
	<title>Apple to iPhone developers: a special message</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1266922020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all the iPhone developers of the world, Apple would like to spread the following message:</p><p><em>You are our bitch now.</em></p><p>Thank you, and enjoy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all the iPhone developers of the world , Apple would like to spread the following message : You are our bitch now.Thank you , and enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all the iPhone developers of the world, Apple would like to spread the following message:You are our bitch now.Thank you, and enjoy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252530</id>
	<title>Re:Even a swimwear merchant app that sold bikinis</title>
	<author>Diagoras of Melos</author>
	<datestamp>1266928200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too, for showing girls in bikinis. <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear\_seller\_hit\_by\_apples\_removal\_of\_sexual\_apps.html" title="appleinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear\_seller\_hit\_by\_apples\_removal\_of\_sexual\_apps.html</a> [appleinsider.com]</p> </div><p>Pure hypocrisy. The bikini store isn't a corporate behemoth like Time Warner, whose SI Swimsuit app remains on the App Store. If there is an app expressly designed for prurient interest, the SI Swimsuit app is it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too , for showing girls in bikinis .
http : //www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear \ _seller \ _hit \ _by \ _apples \ _removal \ _of \ _sexual \ _apps.html [ appleinsider.com ] Pure hypocrisy .
The bikini store is n't a corporate behemoth like Time Warner , whose SI Swimsuit app remains on the App Store .
If there is an app expressly designed for prurient interest , the SI Swimsuit app is it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too, for showing girls in bikinis.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear\_seller\_hit\_by\_apples\_removal\_of\_sexual\_apps.html [appleinsider.com] Pure hypocrisy.
The bikini store isn't a corporate behemoth like Time Warner, whose SI Swimsuit app remains on the App Store.
If there is an app expressly designed for prurient interest, the SI Swimsuit app is it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31253412</id>
	<title>Re:No, this isn't censorship</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1266932280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting aside the specific example of Apple, if that is your definition of censorship then there is no such thing.  After all, the government deciding that pictures of naked adult women being illegal isn't censorship because Canada is just a short drive away and I can see them there.

</p><p>At some point, for the definition to have any meaning at all, we need to allow for the fact that entities can only control their own sphere of influence.  Such that, while I can move to Canada to see boobies if the US government oversteps its bounds we can accept that the US is still performing censorship.  And of course, that Apple is doing the same thing.

</p><p>Of course there are degrees.  A government doing something is far worse than a private company you don't have to do business with doing that same thing.  A company doing something they said they wouldn't is worse than one that wiggles "agreement" into the fine print of their EULA with a "PS we can do anything we want" clause.  It still doesn't change the fact that they're all engaging in censorship of their particular domains of influence.

</p><p>How severe you think what an entity is doing is up to you, as well of course as your reaction to their doing it.  It just doesn't mean they aren't doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting aside the specific example of Apple , if that is your definition of censorship then there is no such thing .
After all , the government deciding that pictures of naked adult women being illegal is n't censorship because Canada is just a short drive away and I can see them there .
At some point , for the definition to have any meaning at all , we need to allow for the fact that entities can only control their own sphere of influence .
Such that , while I can move to Canada to see boobies if the US government oversteps its bounds we can accept that the US is still performing censorship .
And of course , that Apple is doing the same thing .
Of course there are degrees .
A government doing something is far worse than a private company you do n't have to do business with doing that same thing .
A company doing something they said they would n't is worse than one that wiggles " agreement " into the fine print of their EULA with a " PS we can do anything we want " clause .
It still does n't change the fact that they 're all engaging in censorship of their particular domains of influence .
How severe you think what an entity is doing is up to you , as well of course as your reaction to their doing it .
It just does n't mean they are n't doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting aside the specific example of Apple, if that is your definition of censorship then there is no such thing.
After all, the government deciding that pictures of naked adult women being illegal isn't censorship because Canada is just a short drive away and I can see them there.
At some point, for the definition to have any meaning at all, we need to allow for the fact that entities can only control their own sphere of influence.
Such that, while I can move to Canada to see boobies if the US government oversteps its bounds we can accept that the US is still performing censorship.
And of course, that Apple is doing the same thing.
Of course there are degrees.
A government doing something is far worse than a private company you don't have to do business with doing that same thing.
A company doing something they said they wouldn't is worse than one that wiggles "agreement" into the fine print of their EULA with a "PS we can do anything we want" clause.
It still doesn't change the fact that they're all engaging in censorship of their particular domains of influence.
How severe you think what an entity is doing is up to you, as well of course as your reaction to their doing it.
It just doesn't mean they aren't doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247876</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1266954240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is a <a href="http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&amp;q=NASDAQ:AAPL" title="google.com">publicly traded company</a> [google.com] not a private one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is a publicly traded company [ google.com ] not a private one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is a publicly traded company [google.com] not a private one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252252</id>
	<title>Ban the sexy music too! Burn America Down!</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1266926820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple... the trendy artist friendly giant corporation... hates freedom and expression.</p><p>Case closed. Apple's run by pussified Hypocritical Anti American Faggots who will sell under age female singers basically singing "fuck me daddy"....</p><p>but sex in the app store is a no no.</p><p>Please America... especially Apple... Look between your legs, there is either a dick or a pussy.... and a shit hole in back.</p><p>Censor everything! Censor it all... burn the country down and give the planet back to the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple... the trendy artist friendly giant corporation... hates freedom and expression.Case closed .
Apple 's run by pussified Hypocritical Anti American Faggots who will sell under age female singers basically singing " fuck me daddy " ....but sex in the app store is a no no.Please America... especially Apple... Look between your legs , there is either a dick or a pussy.... and a shit hole in back.Censor everything !
Censor it all... burn the country down and give the planet back to the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple... the trendy artist friendly giant corporation... hates freedom and expression.Case closed.
Apple's run by pussified Hypocritical Anti American Faggots who will sell under age female singers basically singing "fuck me daddy"....but sex in the app store is a no no.Please America... especially Apple... Look between your legs, there is either a dick or a pussy.... and a shit hole in back.Censor everything!
Censor it all... burn the country down and give the planet back to the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246798</id>
	<title>case in point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.</p></div><p>Hmmm.. "Read More..." *click*</p><p>Aww, crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the internet , you 're never more than one click away from something horrible.Hmmm.. " Read More... " * click * Aww , crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.Hmmm.. "Read More..." *click*Aww, crap.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248048</id>
	<title>To Apple, who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset"</i>
<br>
<br>
Face it, Apple doesn't care about it's developers, aside from the $99/299 subscription fees. If the title was:
<i>"Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Customers Upset"</i>
<br>
<br>
I'm sure Apple would have those apps back on line asap.
<br>
<br>
When will devs realize Apple doesn't care about you and how hard it's to develop on OSX/iPhone, the appstore, the SDK, and
xcode and all the associated restrictions...? It's like you need to prove to Apple that you're worthy of 'this' relationship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple Bans Sexy Apps , Developers Upset " Face it , Apple does n't care about it 's developers , aside from the $ 99/299 subscription fees .
If the title was : " Apple Bans Sexy Apps , Customers Upset " I 'm sure Apple would have those apps back on line asap .
When will devs realize Apple does n't care about you and how hard it 's to develop on OSX/iPhone , the appstore , the SDK , and xcode and all the associated restrictions... ?
It 's like you need to prove to Apple that you 're worthy of 'this ' relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset"


Face it, Apple doesn't care about it's developers, aside from the $99/299 subscription fees.
If the title was:
"Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Customers Upset"


I'm sure Apple would have those apps back on line asap.
When will devs realize Apple doesn't care about you and how hard it's to develop on OSX/iPhone, the appstore, the SDK, and
xcode and all the associated restrictions...?
It's like you need to prove to Apple that you're worthy of 'this' relationship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247138</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1266951660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't give you damned kids an iphone if you're worried about the content they may come across. Why, back in my day...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't give you damned kids an iphone if you 're worried about the content they may come across .
Why , back in my day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't give you damned kids an iphone if you're worried about the content they may come across.
Why, back in my day...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248582</id>
	<title>Goat what?</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1266956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.</i></p><p>Three links in the summary, but none in that sentence.  What a missed opportunity to make it really hit home...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the internet , you 're never more than one click away from something horrible.Three links in the summary , but none in that sentence .
What a missed opportunity to make it really hit home.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the internet, you're never more than one click away from something horrible.Three links in the summary, but none in that sentence.
What a missed opportunity to make it really hit home...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247082</id>
	<title>The Playboy app is allowed to remain too!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they are removing apps of women in bikinis but leaving apps of fully naked women.</p><p>Phil Schiller says it is because Playboy is an established brand: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/23/phil-schiller-acknowledges-new-app-store-sexual-content-ban-and-exceptions/</p><p>So the real message here is that these images are only degrading if they come from a non-established brand. apparently established brands are less offensive.</p><p>I have an iPhone and love it, would never buy a porn app from it, and hate to see the App Store clogged with those apps, but this is not the answer. Create an Adults/Mature section, put the the apps like this in there, and be done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they are removing apps of women in bikinis but leaving apps of fully naked women.Phil Schiller says it is because Playboy is an established brand : http : //www.macrumors.com/2010/02/23/phil-schiller-acknowledges-new-app-store-sexual-content-ban-and-exceptions/So the real message here is that these images are only degrading if they come from a non-established brand .
apparently established brands are less offensive.I have an iPhone and love it , would never buy a porn app from it , and hate to see the App Store clogged with those apps , but this is not the answer .
Create an Adults/Mature section , put the the apps like this in there , and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they are removing apps of women in bikinis but leaving apps of fully naked women.Phil Schiller says it is because Playboy is an established brand: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/23/phil-schiller-acknowledges-new-app-store-sexual-content-ban-and-exceptions/So the real message here is that these images are only degrading if they come from a non-established brand.
apparently established brands are less offensive.I have an iPhone and love it, would never buy a porn app from it, and hate to see the App Store clogged with those apps, but this is not the answer.
Create an Adults/Mature section, put the the apps like this in there, and be done with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246722</id>
	<title>Even political apps too</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1266950280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008. When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: <a href="http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/" title="juggleware.com">http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/</a> [juggleware.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What&#226;(TM)s the point? Steve</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008 .
When it was rejected , the author emailed Apple , and Jobs himself replied : http : //www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ [ juggleware.com ] Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic , I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers .
What   ( TM ) s the point ?
Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008.
When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ [juggleware.com] Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers.
Whatâ(TM)s the point?
Steve
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251890</id>
	<title>Re:Please...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266925080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.</i></p><p>True. Fortunately there still is a large reservoir of pr0n on websites easily available with the iphone.</p><p>So, what does this accomplish? Nothing.</p><p>Has Apple gone through every TV show available on itunes to look for scantily-clad (but dressed) women?</p><p>This only makes it more clear to the general population that Apple are bigger jerks than Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.True .
Fortunately there still is a large reservoir of pr0n on websites easily available with the iphone.So , what does this accomplish ?
Nothing.Has Apple gone through every TV show available on itunes to look for scantily-clad ( but dressed ) women ? This only makes it more clear to the general population that Apple are bigger jerks than Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.True.
Fortunately there still is a large reservoir of pr0n on websites easily available with the iphone.So, what does this accomplish?
Nothing.Has Apple gone through every TV show available on itunes to look for scantily-clad (but dressed) women?This only makes it more clear to the general population that Apple are bigger jerks than Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250742</id>
	<title>Typical America.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical of an American corporation.  Well, let's be honest, it is.  Oh the republicans are up in arms!  A blanket ban?  Let adults decide for themselves, for fucks sakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical of an American corporation .
Well , let 's be honest , it is .
Oh the republicans are up in arms !
A blanket ban ?
Let adults decide for themselves , for fucks sakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical of an American corporation.
Well, let's be honest, it is.
Oh the republicans are up in arms!
A blanket ban?
Let adults decide for themselves, for fucks sakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247128</id>
	<title>root of the problem</title>
	<author>perlchild</author>
	<datestamp>1266951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real problem is not that you are forced to follow the rules to be on the apple store.  Is that if, as a developer, you want to develop for the iPhone, you HAVE to use the apple store.  Apple specifically, and (IANAL) dodgily makes you sign an agreement that says you cannot build your own appstore for iphone, even if it is for your own apps.  Now if I had a lot of free time/money to throw at the problem, I'd try to challenge this on the basis of the local consumer laws, and(I'm in Quebec) with the language thing, I'm sure we could build a case for our own appstore, used only for apps meaningful here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real problem is not that you are forced to follow the rules to be on the apple store .
Is that if , as a developer , you want to develop for the iPhone , you HAVE to use the apple store .
Apple specifically , and ( IANAL ) dodgily makes you sign an agreement that says you can not build your own appstore for iphone , even if it is for your own apps .
Now if I had a lot of free time/money to throw at the problem , I 'd try to challenge this on the basis of the local consumer laws , and ( I 'm in Quebec ) with the language thing , I 'm sure we could build a case for our own appstore , used only for apps meaningful here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real problem is not that you are forced to follow the rules to be on the apple store.
Is that if, as a developer, you want to develop for the iPhone, you HAVE to use the apple store.
Apple specifically, and (IANAL) dodgily makes you sign an agreement that says you cannot build your own appstore for iphone, even if it is for your own apps.
Now if I had a lot of free time/money to throw at the problem, I'd try to challenge this on the basis of the local consumer laws, and(I'm in Quebec) with the language thing, I'm sure we could build a case for our own appstore, used only for apps meaningful here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247154</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1266951720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating "your rights online" when it is nothing of the sort.</p><p>The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can <b>censor</b> whatever products to choose to its customers.</p> </div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating " your rights online " when it is nothing of the sort.The fact is , a consumer retailer like Apple can censor whatever products to choose to its customers .
FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it laughable that slashdot labels so many stories as evil censorship or somehow violating "your rights online" when it is nothing of the sort.The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can censor whatever products to choose to its customers.
FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31265776</id>
	<title>The Web is exactly why these apps aren't needed</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1265110260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind<br>&gt; of web browser on there.</p><p>That is exactly why these apps are not needed in App Store. All Apple devices have an HTML5 browser with ISO audio video. There is no shortage of porn without having to go through Apple.</p><p>App Store is specifically about being an alternative to the Web. What you have on the Web, you should not have in App Store and vice versa. In App Store, it's managed, it's mediated, and the Web is completely unmanaged, unmediated.</p><p>Plus these apps were softcore garbage. The selection of porno on the Web is much more sophisticated. Everybody is better off because of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they do n't have any kind &gt; of web browser on there.That is exactly why these apps are not needed in App Store .
All Apple devices have an HTML5 browser with ISO audio video .
There is no shortage of porn without having to go through Apple.App Store is specifically about being an alternative to the Web .
What you have on the Web , you should not have in App Store and vice versa .
In App Store , it 's managed , it 's mediated , and the Web is completely unmanaged , unmediated.Plus these apps were softcore garbage .
The selection of porno on the Web is much more sophisticated .
Everybody is better off because of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind&gt; of web browser on there.That is exactly why these apps are not needed in App Store.
All Apple devices have an HTML5 browser with ISO audio video.
There is no shortage of porn without having to go through Apple.App Store is specifically about being an alternative to the Web.
What you have on the Web, you should not have in App Store and vice versa.
In App Store, it's managed, it's mediated, and the Web is completely unmanaged, unmediated.Plus these apps were softcore garbage.
The selection of porno on the Web is much more sophisticated.
Everybody is better off because of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246818</id>
	<title>Let the parodies begin</title>
	<author>fragmatic43</author>
	<datestamp>1266950520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This one is filled with open source images and written in jQTouch so it doesn't need the App Store:

<a href="http://www.wayner.org/node/69" title="wayner.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.wayner.org/node/69</a> [wayner.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This one is filled with open source images and written in jQTouch so it does n't need the App Store : http : //www.wayner.org/node/69 [ wayner.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one is filled with open source images and written in jQTouch so it doesn't need the App Store:

http://www.wayner.org/node/69 [wayner.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248706</id>
	<title>Re:Developers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh so now we are protecting people from spending money on what they want to? I am pretty sure that if you bought the app and saw it was crap, you would refund it. Also if it is such crap then I guess people wouldn't be downloading it but it sounds like some of these were top sellers. So now we are protecting people from apps that provide little utility? How about what people want? I bet you're one of those "There should be a law..." types.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh so now we are protecting people from spending money on what they want to ?
I am pretty sure that if you bought the app and saw it was crap , you would refund it .
Also if it is such crap then I guess people would n't be downloading it but it sounds like some of these were top sellers .
So now we are protecting people from apps that provide little utility ?
How about what people want ?
I bet you 're one of those " There should be a law... " types .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh so now we are protecting people from spending money on what they want to?
I am pretty sure that if you bought the app and saw it was crap, you would refund it.
Also if it is such crap then I guess people wouldn't be downloading it but it sounds like some of these were top sellers.
So now we are protecting people from apps that provide little utility?
How about what people want?
I bet you're one of those "There should be a law..." types.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246876</id>
	<title>Bullshit without consistancy</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could understand this as a choice, although it is hard to do so when they have a very good rating system in place (which they have).</p><p>But what does not make any sense is doing this ban and exempting large companies like Playboy and Sports Illustrated.  I mean, you CAN understand it but the action is indefensible.</p><p>Especially when you can get porn of any level via the browser, why ban these apps at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could understand this as a choice , although it is hard to do so when they have a very good rating system in place ( which they have ) .But what does not make any sense is doing this ban and exempting large companies like Playboy and Sports Illustrated .
I mean , you CAN understand it but the action is indefensible.Especially when you can get porn of any level via the browser , why ban these apps at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could understand this as a choice, although it is hard to do so when they have a very good rating system in place (which they have).But what does not make any sense is doing this ban and exempting large companies like Playboy and Sports Illustrated.
I mean, you CAN understand it but the action is indefensible.Especially when you can get porn of any level via the browser, why ban these apps at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246966</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>pitchpipe</author>
	<datestamp>1266951060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This Is Not Censorship At All<br>
by Anonymous Coward [aka Steve Jobs]</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This Is Not Censorship At All by Anonymous Coward [ aka Steve Jobs ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Is Not Censorship At All
by Anonymous Coward [aka Steve Jobs]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250266</id>
	<title>Hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Roogna</author>
	<datestamp>1266919260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But honestly, these apps -were- getting annoying.  I have nothing against them, but it was annoying to see them taking up slots in the Top 25 lists and such when I really want "interesting" apps to be there, not run of the mill photo collections.  Now mind you, I honestly believe Apple should simply create a Adult category, only show it if the parental controls on the phone aren't turned on, and let parents decide to block it if they like.  Then allow whatever in there, I don't care.  Hell I'll even check it out and see what's there occasionally, but then it also isn't flooding out the other apps.</p><p>On that note I won't be surprised if Apple -does- add a category for it and start letting these apps back in at some point.  The catch being, if Apple has shown one thing in the life of the App store, is that such updates are unlikely to come without a major iPhoneOS update and the changes that come with that to iTunes Connect.  I'm sure if these apps are making money, then they're also making money for Apple, and Steve Jobs or not, the stockholders interests then show that it's probably a good idea to keep selling them in a fashion that isn't -costing- the company money from other angles.  But those changes would take yet more changes to the parental control systems on both iTunes and the iPhone OS, so it'll be awhile.  No big shock there either.  Now to all those complaining, please have fun, keep complaining, nothing gets done without someone complaining about it.  But do realize there's an entire distribution architecture there that is affected by changes and nothing is ever likely to happen overnight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But honestly , these apps -were- getting annoying .
I have nothing against them , but it was annoying to see them taking up slots in the Top 25 lists and such when I really want " interesting " apps to be there , not run of the mill photo collections .
Now mind you , I honestly believe Apple should simply create a Adult category , only show it if the parental controls on the phone are n't turned on , and let parents decide to block it if they like .
Then allow whatever in there , I do n't care .
Hell I 'll even check it out and see what 's there occasionally , but then it also is n't flooding out the other apps.On that note I wo n't be surprised if Apple -does- add a category for it and start letting these apps back in at some point .
The catch being , if Apple has shown one thing in the life of the App store , is that such updates are unlikely to come without a major iPhoneOS update and the changes that come with that to iTunes Connect .
I 'm sure if these apps are making money , then they 're also making money for Apple , and Steve Jobs or not , the stockholders interests then show that it 's probably a good idea to keep selling them in a fashion that is n't -costing- the company money from other angles .
But those changes would take yet more changes to the parental control systems on both iTunes and the iPhone OS , so it 'll be awhile .
No big shock there either .
Now to all those complaining , please have fun , keep complaining , nothing gets done without someone complaining about it .
But do realize there 's an entire distribution architecture there that is affected by changes and nothing is ever likely to happen overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But honestly, these apps -were- getting annoying.
I have nothing against them, but it was annoying to see them taking up slots in the Top 25 lists and such when I really want "interesting" apps to be there, not run of the mill photo collections.
Now mind you, I honestly believe Apple should simply create a Adult category, only show it if the parental controls on the phone aren't turned on, and let parents decide to block it if they like.
Then allow whatever in there, I don't care.
Hell I'll even check it out and see what's there occasionally, but then it also isn't flooding out the other apps.On that note I won't be surprised if Apple -does- add a category for it and start letting these apps back in at some point.
The catch being, if Apple has shown one thing in the life of the App store, is that such updates are unlikely to come without a major iPhoneOS update and the changes that come with that to iTunes Connect.
I'm sure if these apps are making money, then they're also making money for Apple, and Steve Jobs or not, the stockholders interests then show that it's probably a good idea to keep selling them in a fashion that isn't -costing- the company money from other angles.
But those changes would take yet more changes to the parental control systems on both iTunes and the iPhone OS, so it'll be awhile.
No big shock there either.
Now to all those complaining, please have fun, keep complaining, nothing gets done without someone complaining about it.
But do realize there's an entire distribution architecture there that is affected by changes and nothing is ever likely to happen overnight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247556</id>
	<title>You think Apple's inconsistent? Try 7-11!</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inconsistency where the female form is concerned?</p><p>I see you and I raise you.</p><p>I went into my local 7-Eleven a few weeks ago and saw that Maxim, which sported an attractive scantily clad girl on the front cover, was covered up. Beside it was the National Enquirer (or one of those tabloids) showing a scantily clad girl parading a horrific and stomach-churning display of stretched skin, fat and cellulite. It wasn't covered up.</p><p>Shit man, if I wanted to live in a country where the sight of a human body was offensive I'd move to Saudi fucking Arabia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inconsistency where the female form is concerned ? I see you and I raise you.I went into my local 7-Eleven a few weeks ago and saw that Maxim , which sported an attractive scantily clad girl on the front cover , was covered up .
Beside it was the National Enquirer ( or one of those tabloids ) showing a scantily clad girl parading a horrific and stomach-churning display of stretched skin , fat and cellulite .
It was n't covered up.Shit man , if I wanted to live in a country where the sight of a human body was offensive I 'd move to Saudi fucking Arabia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inconsistency where the female form is concerned?I see you and I raise you.I went into my local 7-Eleven a few weeks ago and saw that Maxim, which sported an attractive scantily clad girl on the front cover, was covered up.
Beside it was the National Enquirer (or one of those tabloids) showing a scantily clad girl parading a horrific and stomach-churning display of stretched skin, fat and cellulite.
It wasn't covered up.Shit man, if I wanted to live in a country where the sight of a human body was offensive I'd move to Saudi fucking Arabia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247124</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because they can do it doesn't mean it's right. Some people complain because they like the hardware of the iphone and the user interface. Now they want to be able to use certain apps and they can't I certainly think that is worth complaining about. Sure you can go and get another phone but isn't the market also about leveraging what people want? If it's not enough people to care then it is what it is but don't dismiss customer dissatisfaction because Apple can do whatever it wants. You are the same guys who complain when Google or Microsoft exercised their business direction too. You don't like what they do? Fine, it's your right and your prerogative to let them know your dissatisfaction. You tell people to deal with whatever Apple does or beat it, maybe you should deal with a world where people aren't going to be happy with certain changes a company makes. DEAL WITH IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because they can do it does n't mean it 's right .
Some people complain because they like the hardware of the iphone and the user interface .
Now they want to be able to use certain apps and they ca n't I certainly think that is worth complaining about .
Sure you can go and get another phone but is n't the market also about leveraging what people want ?
If it 's not enough people to care then it is what it is but do n't dismiss customer dissatisfaction because Apple can do whatever it wants .
You are the same guys who complain when Google or Microsoft exercised their business direction too .
You do n't like what they do ?
Fine , it 's your right and your prerogative to let them know your dissatisfaction .
You tell people to deal with whatever Apple does or beat it , maybe you should deal with a world where people are n't going to be happy with certain changes a company makes .
DEAL WITH IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because they can do it doesn't mean it's right.
Some people complain because they like the hardware of the iphone and the user interface.
Now they want to be able to use certain apps and they can't I certainly think that is worth complaining about.
Sure you can go and get another phone but isn't the market also about leveraging what people want?
If it's not enough people to care then it is what it is but don't dismiss customer dissatisfaction because Apple can do whatever it wants.
You are the same guys who complain when Google or Microsoft exercised their business direction too.
You don't like what they do?
Fine, it's your right and your prerogative to let them know your dissatisfaction.
You tell people to deal with whatever Apple does or beat it, maybe you should deal with a world where people aren't going to be happy with certain changes a company makes.
DEAL WITH IT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266950040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say taking down a best seller App based on its "Risque-ness" is censorship, any way you want to slice it.</p><p>Apple can stock and sell whatever products it wants to choose from. Yes. It is still censorship - but we've come to terms that private companies have the right to censorship. Apple is fine with censoring, its their product. And I agree - there's nothing wrong with that. But to say it isn't censorship is like saying the Chinese government isn't censoring web searches, they are just choosing to provide what they think is best, not censorship at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say taking down a best seller App based on its " Risque-ness " is censorship , any way you want to slice it.Apple can stock and sell whatever products it wants to choose from .
Yes. It is still censorship - but we 've come to terms that private companies have the right to censorship .
Apple is fine with censoring , its their product .
And I agree - there 's nothing wrong with that .
But to say it is n't censorship is like saying the Chinese government is n't censoring web searches , they are just choosing to provide what they think is best , not censorship at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say taking down a best seller App based on its "Risque-ness" is censorship, any way you want to slice it.Apple can stock and sell whatever products it wants to choose from.
Yes. It is still censorship - but we've come to terms that private companies have the right to censorship.
Apple is fine with censoring, its their product.
And I agree - there's nothing wrong with that.
But to say it isn't censorship is like saying the Chinese government isn't censoring web searches, they are just choosing to provide what they think is best, not censorship at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247822</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Adlopa</author>
	<datestamp>1266954000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers.  What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.</p><p>This is just another non-issue.  The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.</p></div><p>Hm, I'm not so sure about that. Schiller has already intimated that Apple is now operating a cartel with certain app developers when <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/technology/23apps.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">responding to a question</a> [nytimes.com] about why Sports Illustrated's and Playboy's apps are not banned: </p><p>&ldquo;The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format&rdquo;.</p><p>I also suspect that Apple's App Store practices will lead to an antitrust investigation at some point. The iPhone is <a href="http://www.tipb.com/2010/02/09/apples-iphone-market-share-growing-iphone-3gs-2-bestseller/" title="tipb.com" rel="nofollow">gaining dominance</a> [tipb.com] in the smartphone market and if its capricious App Store behaviour continues, accusations of monopolistic behaviour are bound to crop up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers .
What they do n't stock is really none of your business , and if you do n't like , take your products and have someone else carry it.This is just another non-issue .
The problem with Apple is that they are too successful , they need to keep out the riff raff.Hm , I 'm not so sure about that .
Schiller has already intimated that Apple is now operating a cartel with certain app developers when responding to a question [ nytimes.com ] about why Sports Illustrated 's and Playboy 's apps are not banned :    The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format    .I also suspect that Apple 's App Store practices will lead to an antitrust investigation at some point .
The iPhone is gaining dominance [ tipb.com ] in the smartphone market and if its capricious App Store behaviour continues , accusations of monopolistic behaviour are bound to crop up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, a consumer retailer like Apple can stock and sell whatever products to choose to its customers.
What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.This is just another non-issue.
The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.Hm, I'm not so sure about that.
Schiller has already intimated that Apple is now operating a cartel with certain app developers when responding to a question [nytimes.com] about why Sports Illustrated's and Playboy's apps are not banned: “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format”.I also suspect that Apple's App Store practices will lead to an antitrust investigation at some point.
The iPhone is gaining dominance [tipb.com] in the smartphone market and if its capricious App Store behaviour continues, accusations of monopolistic behaviour are bound to crop up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247692</id>
	<title>They're American. What do you expect?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1266953580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America is full of prudes. Compare with a well know Finnish company.</p><p><a href="http://store.ovi.com/content/17993" title="ovi.com">http://store.ovi.com/content/17993</a> [ovi.com]</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America is full of prudes .
Compare with a well know Finnish company.http : //store.ovi.com/content/17993 [ ovi.com ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is full of prudes.
Compare with a well know Finnish company.http://store.ovi.com/content/17993 [ovi.com]
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251076</id>
	<title>DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266922140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Apple, after all. Can't they employ some kind of DRM to lock down the education-targeted phones? That would make those more desirable, yes? </p><p>First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME FOR MY PORN . . . </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Apple , after all .
Ca n't they employ some kind of DRM to lock down the education-targeted phones ?
That would make those more desirable , yes ?
First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I was n't a Jew .
THEN THEY CAME FOR MY PORN .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Apple, after all.
Can't they employ some kind of DRM to lock down the education-targeted phones?
That would make those more desirable, yes?
First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME FOR MY PORN .
. . </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249020</id>
	<title>I want to see them remove the Safari app now...</title>
	<author>jgoemat</author>
	<datestamp>1266957900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to see them remove the Safari app now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to see them remove the Safari app now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to see them remove the Safari app now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248358</id>
	<title>Scaring off customers?</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1266956040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, they've scared off <i>this</i> customer by doing that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they 've scared off this customer by doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they've scared off this customer by doing that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247678</id>
	<title>Re:Even a swimwear merchant app that sold bikinis</title>
	<author>WorkingDead</author>
	<datestamp>1266953520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2010 app remains in the store and is currently in the top 25 apps and on the featured list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2010 app remains in the store and is currently in the top 25 apps and on the featured list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2010 app remains in the store and is currently in the top 25 apps and on the featured list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247910</id>
	<title>So,</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1266954360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Sears,Wallmart,JC Penny's,Kmart just to name a few big name stores, don't sell pornography are they control freaks as well? Its funny how people think the internet is any different then a brick and mortar store. As it is the internet has become one huge Catalog store,like the old Sears and robuck catalog where you could even buy a house.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Sears,Wallmart,JC Penny 's,Kmart just to name a few big name stores , do n't sell pornography are they control freaks as well ?
Its funny how people think the internet is any different then a brick and mortar store .
As it is the internet has become one huge Catalog store,like the old Sears and robuck catalog where you could even buy a house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Sears,Wallmart,JC Penny's,Kmart just to name a few big name stores, don't sell pornography are they control freaks as well?
Its funny how people think the internet is any different then a brick and mortar store.
As it is the internet has become one huge Catalog store,like the old Sears and robuck catalog where you could even buy a house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247166</id>
	<title>lets look at this reasonably</title>
	<author>musikit</author>
	<datestamp>1266951780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there were a couple of developers that created<br>Woman With Few Cloths app and then copied it<br>Woman With Few Cloths 01012010<br>Woman With Few Cloths 01012011<br>Woman With Few Cloths 01012012<br>Woman With Few Cloths 01012013<br>etc.</p><p>so they always had the "new app" position.</p><p>plus these apps didnt have nude woman they had woman in suggestive positions wearing cloths. to get around the parental filtering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there were a couple of developers that createdWoman With Few Cloths app and then copied itWoman With Few Cloths 01012010Woman With Few Cloths 01012011Woman With Few Cloths 01012012Woman With Few Cloths 01012013etc.so they always had the " new app " position.plus these apps didnt have nude woman they had woman in suggestive positions wearing cloths .
to get around the parental filtering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there were a couple of developers that createdWoman With Few Cloths app and then copied itWoman With Few Cloths 01012010Woman With Few Cloths 01012011Woman With Few Cloths 01012012Woman With Few Cloths 01012013etc.so they always had the "new app" position.plus these apps didnt have nude woman they had woman in suggestive positions wearing cloths.
to get around the parental filtering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31255876</id>
	<title>You people need to grow up.</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1266950160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, if you want porn open a browser on your computer in the privacy of your own "home". If you get caught looking at porn in a public place on your phone, you are likely to get labelled a sex offender so Apple is really doing people who have no self control a favour.
<p>
Apple is a publicly traded company and they are simply doing their best to enforce common community standards. Publicly traded companies are expected to have a set of values and these rejections are a reflection of that. They are also aware that their stores are accessed by all sorts of age groups and they are not interested in creating segregated sections based on age group.
</p><p>
This is really no different than moderated forums. When a moderator deletes posts or bans members, it is not censorship because they are a private entity. Censorship laws apply to the state.
</p><p>
Pornography has never been about "freedom of speech". It is a dishonest legal defence.
</p><p>
It is true that SI and Playboy are still present in the store but those are both publicly traded companies with rigorous internal corporate compliance rules which ensure that anyone appearing in the photos are paid fairly, not exploited through drug abuse or underage at the time of the photo shoot. These other apps are often created by small fly by night outfits and could possibly contain picture they do not have copyright for and possibly depict underaged girls.
</p><p>
Apple is not interested in investigating the legality of every "girly" picture app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if you want porn open a browser on your computer in the privacy of your own " home " .
If you get caught looking at porn in a public place on your phone , you are likely to get labelled a sex offender so Apple is really doing people who have no self control a favour .
Apple is a publicly traded company and they are simply doing their best to enforce common community standards .
Publicly traded companies are expected to have a set of values and these rejections are a reflection of that .
They are also aware that their stores are accessed by all sorts of age groups and they are not interested in creating segregated sections based on age group .
This is really no different than moderated forums .
When a moderator deletes posts or bans members , it is not censorship because they are a private entity .
Censorship laws apply to the state .
Pornography has never been about " freedom of speech " .
It is a dishonest legal defence .
It is true that SI and Playboy are still present in the store but those are both publicly traded companies with rigorous internal corporate compliance rules which ensure that anyone appearing in the photos are paid fairly , not exploited through drug abuse or underage at the time of the photo shoot .
These other apps are often created by small fly by night outfits and could possibly contain picture they do not have copyright for and possibly depict underaged girls .
Apple is not interested in investigating the legality of every " girly " picture app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if you want porn open a browser on your computer in the privacy of your own "home".
If you get caught looking at porn in a public place on your phone, you are likely to get labelled a sex offender so Apple is really doing people who have no self control a favour.
Apple is a publicly traded company and they are simply doing their best to enforce common community standards.
Publicly traded companies are expected to have a set of values and these rejections are a reflection of that.
They are also aware that their stores are accessed by all sorts of age groups and they are not interested in creating segregated sections based on age group.
This is really no different than moderated forums.
When a moderator deletes posts or bans members, it is not censorship because they are a private entity.
Censorship laws apply to the state.
Pornography has never been about "freedom of speech".
It is a dishonest legal defence.
It is true that SI and Playboy are still present in the store but those are both publicly traded companies with rigorous internal corporate compliance rules which ensure that anyone appearing in the photos are paid fairly, not exploited through drug abuse or underage at the time of the photo shoot.
These other apps are often created by small fly by night outfits and could possibly contain picture they do not have copyright for and possibly depict underaged girls.
Apple is not interested in investigating the legality of every "girly" picture app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250652</id>
	<title>As I've never been to US can someone explain to me</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1266920760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.</p></div><p>How exactly is this degrading to women?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.How exactly is this degrading to women ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple removed them after getting complaints that they were degrading to women.How exactly is this degrading to women?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31253454</id>
	<title>Educational</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1266932520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just say that your sexy application is for educational purposes. Problem solved!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just say that your sexy application is for educational purposes .
Problem solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just say that your sexy application is for educational purposes.
Problem solved!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247766</id>
	<title>Re:No, this isn't censorship</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1266953820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are still other places to get Hustler.</p></div></blockquote><p> Does that mean there's no such thing as censorship unless there's literally no outlet for a particular form of expression? After all, "there are still other countries where speech is not suppressed."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still other places to get Hustler .
Does that mean there 's no such thing as censorship unless there 's literally no outlet for a particular form of expression ?
After all , " there are still other countries where speech is not suppressed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still other places to get Hustler.
Does that mean there's no such thing as censorship unless there's literally no outlet for a particular form of expression?
After all, "there are still other countries where speech is not suppressed.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248564</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>Sleepy</author>
	<datestamp>1266956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.</p><p>Actually, there IS an app that translates grammatically-correct English into Sarah Palin-speak...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.Actually , there IS an app that translates grammatically-correct English into Sarah Palin-speak.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.Actually, there IS an app that translates grammatically-correct English into Sarah Palin-speak...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249218</id>
	<title>These stories are nolonger "news"</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1266958500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes the Apple app store has double standards. Yes, some of these denials seems unnecessary. But, they are also the result of being in the public view - and constant scrutiny.</p><p>Few of these articles, especially on banning of sexually explicit apps, consider the situation from Apple's point of view. Which is: iPhones, iTouches, iPods and iPads are marketed to people under the age of 18 and  21. Apple products are family products and need to abide by general morality guidelines if they are to be accepted in to homes, schools, and businesses.</p><p>Other topics, such as apps that are redundant to the Apple or their partner's apps, challenge Apples *successful* business strategy.</p><p>Undeniably, the iPad changes the situation from a phone with apps to mini-computer with a phone, yet still apps cannot interfere with the phone device or the partnered service plan.</p><p>Many people recoil and shout "CENSORSHIP!" in their blogs, but I wonder if they really understand the role Apple fills. What happens when something bad happens to a device or to the user? The responsibility will fall on Apple's shoulders - will hurt Apple's bottom line. Someone in the equation has to be responsible and, frankly, I don't expect that from anyone under 30.</p><p>No, I am not trolling. Just look at the post above and the complete utter lack of logic, "It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there." Apple's app store doesn't sell internet content. Apple is not accountable for what's on the internet. Its only accountable for what it sells via the store and the content it points us too. Wobbly boobs apps appeal directly to children.</p><p>Yes, Apple's app approval process needs to be more benign. No, Apple shouldn't allow all and any app. Buy Android if you need to have sex apps with you at all times...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the Apple app store has double standards .
Yes , some of these denials seems unnecessary .
But , they are also the result of being in the public view - and constant scrutiny.Few of these articles , especially on banning of sexually explicit apps , consider the situation from Apple 's point of view .
Which is : iPhones , iTouches , iPods and iPads are marketed to people under the age of 18 and 21 .
Apple products are family products and need to abide by general morality guidelines if they are to be accepted in to homes , schools , and businesses.Other topics , such as apps that are redundant to the Apple or their partner 's apps , challenge Apples * successful * business strategy.Undeniably , the iPad changes the situation from a phone with apps to mini-computer with a phone , yet still apps can not interfere with the phone device or the partnered service plan.Many people recoil and shout " CENSORSHIP !
" in their blogs , but I wonder if they really understand the role Apple fills .
What happens when something bad happens to a device or to the user ?
The responsibility will fall on Apple 's shoulders - will hurt Apple 's bottom line .
Someone in the equation has to be responsible and , frankly , I do n't expect that from anyone under 30.No , I am not trolling .
Just look at the post above and the complete utter lack of logic , " It 's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they do n't have any kind of web browser on there .
" Apple 's app store does n't sell internet content .
Apple is not accountable for what 's on the internet .
Its only accountable for what it sells via the store and the content it points us too .
Wobbly boobs apps appeal directly to children.Yes , Apple 's app approval process needs to be more benign .
No , Apple should n't allow all and any app .
Buy Android if you need to have sex apps with you at all times.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the Apple app store has double standards.
Yes, some of these denials seems unnecessary.
But, they are also the result of being in the public view - and constant scrutiny.Few of these articles, especially on banning of sexually explicit apps, consider the situation from Apple's point of view.
Which is: iPhones, iTouches, iPods and iPads are marketed to people under the age of 18 and  21.
Apple products are family products and need to abide by general morality guidelines if they are to be accepted in to homes, schools, and businesses.Other topics, such as apps that are redundant to the Apple or their partner's apps, challenge Apples *successful* business strategy.Undeniably, the iPad changes the situation from a phone with apps to mini-computer with a phone, yet still apps cannot interfere with the phone device or the partnered service plan.Many people recoil and shout "CENSORSHIP!
" in their blogs, but I wonder if they really understand the role Apple fills.
What happens when something bad happens to a device or to the user?
The responsibility will fall on Apple's shoulders - will hurt Apple's bottom line.
Someone in the equation has to be responsible and, frankly, I don't expect that from anyone under 30.No, I am not trolling.
Just look at the post above and the complete utter lack of logic, "It's sure a good thing for those worried parents that they don't have any kind of web browser on there.
" Apple's app store doesn't sell internet content.
Apple is not accountable for what's on the internet.
Its only accountable for what it sells via the store and the content it points us too.
Wobbly boobs apps appeal directly to children.Yes, Apple's app approval process needs to be more benign.
No, Apple shouldn't allow all and any app.
Buy Android if you need to have sex apps with you at all times...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31257186</id>
	<title>Ban the iPhone itself then!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265107800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess they're about to ban the iPhone itself for being too sexy. And here I thought Apple's <i>goal</i> was to make sexy products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess they 're about to ban the iPhone itself for being too sexy .
And here I thought Apple 's goal was to make sexy products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess they're about to ban the iPhone itself for being too sexy.
And here I thought Apple's goal was to make sexy products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GP's Subject line is inaccurate, but the body of his post is correct.</p><p>It is censorship, but it's not 'evil' censorship, nor is it a violation of anyone's rights.</p><p>Apple is exercising their right to control what's in their storefront.  If you don't like it, you have other options for your porn^H^H^Hhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GP 's Subject line is inaccurate , but the body of his post is correct.It is censorship , but it 's not 'evil ' censorship , nor is it a violation of anyone 's rights.Apple is exercising their right to control what 's in their storefront .
If you do n't like it , you have other options for your porn ^ H ^ H ^ Hhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GP's Subject line is inaccurate, but the body of his post is correct.It is censorship, but it's not 'evil' censorship, nor is it a violation of anyone's rights.Apple is exercising their right to control what's in their storefront.
If you don't like it, you have other options for your porn^H^H^Hhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249058</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1266958020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.</p> </div><p>You can't. Steve Jobs = prior art dude. Just ask Steve Wozniak. So you've gone from iCunt to uCant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt .
You ca n't .
Steve Jobs = prior art dude .
Just ask Steve Wozniak .
So you 've gone from iCunt to uCant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.
You can't.
Steve Jobs = prior art dude.
Just ask Steve Wozniak.
So you've gone from iCunt to uCant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248776</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1266957180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bravo, sir, for pointing out what is a truth that escapes so many people with depressing regularity. Apple is under no obligation to provide a venue for anyone's "expression". <br>
That said, that Apple feels the <i>need</i> to enforce some puritanical standard of "decency" (not even a swimsuit model, for chrisake?) is what is really alarming. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you don't like women showing their naughty bits, like their navels, apparently, don't by the app. Why make Apple the enforcer of your hung-up "moral code"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo , sir , for pointing out what is a truth that escapes so many people with depressing regularity .
Apple is under no obligation to provide a venue for anyone 's " expression " .
That said , that Apple feels the need to enforce some puritanical standard of " decency " ( not even a swimsuit model , for chrisake ?
) is what is really alarming .
Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?
If you do n't like women showing their naughty bits , like their navels , apparently , do n't by the app .
Why make Apple the enforcer of your hung-up " moral code " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo, sir, for pointing out what is a truth that escapes so many people with depressing regularity.
Apple is under no obligation to provide a venue for anyone's "expression".
That said, that Apple feels the need to enforce some puritanical standard of "decency" (not even a swimsuit model, for chrisake?
) is what is really alarming.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
If you don't like women showing their naughty bits, like their navels, apparently, don't by the app.
Why make Apple the enforcer of your hung-up "moral code"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246766</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1266950400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"God, schmod, I want my monkeyman^Wibewbies!"</i> <br> <br>
Why can't Apple let the market decide. Set up some sort of rating system so people can filter out stuff they don't want to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" God , schmod , I want my monkeyman ^ Wibewbies !
" Why ca n't Apple let the market decide .
Set up some sort of rating system so people can filter out stuff they do n't want to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"God, schmod, I want my monkeyman^Wibewbies!
"  
Why can't Apple let the market decide.
Set up some sort of rating system so people can filter out stuff they don't want to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236</id>
	<title>Please...</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1266952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.</p><p>They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else 's boobies.They 've had their day and nothing of value has been lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250182</id>
	<title>There is no need for sexy apps</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1266918960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone ought to be enough for anybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone ought to be enough for anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone ought to be enough for anybody.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246930</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff."</p><p>Yeah, except 99\% of people I know with iPhones are the gullable chav underclass who believe the iPhone makes them somehow look middle class, so I guess they can't even manage to keep the riff-raff out properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The problem with Apple is that they are too successful , they need to keep out the riff raff .
" Yeah , except 99 \ % of people I know with iPhones are the gullable chav underclass who believe the iPhone makes them somehow look middle class , so I guess they ca n't even manage to keep the riff-raff out properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The problem with Apple is that they are too successful, they need to keep out the riff raff.
"Yeah, except 99\% of people I know with iPhones are the gullable chav underclass who believe the iPhone makes them somehow look middle class, so I guess they can't even manage to keep the riff-raff out properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249448</id>
	<title>Porn offends customers and iFart doesn't?</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1266916080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a really bad business decision, regardless of one's beliefs.    </p><p>Why would you eliminate the "porn" because you're worried about scaring off potential customers?  Porn has been estimated to generate more than $10B/year!  This makes sense since we, as a species, have evolved to fixate on sex all the time.  Apple should be cashing in, not out if they are worried about maintaining customers.  Even the puritanical types who publically denounce porn have been known to engage in a little private titillation... which the iPhone is perfect for. </p><p>I don't find the lewd apps offensive, but I do find the stupid ones like iFart moronic to the point that they offend me.  I guess I would rather live with a bunch of horny people than a bunch of morons. </p><p>It would have been a lot more intelligent to just develop an adult app section that requires credit card age verification.  I suspect this has more to do with Steve's personal preferences than anything else.  </p><p>Any stop saying "If you want porn, you can just use Safari!"  It's a silly argument.  How would you feel if someone told you "If you want to check your mail, you can just use Safari."  The same goes for the weather app, the calendar app, the maps app and any of the other apps you can buy in the app store.      </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a really bad business decision , regardless of one 's beliefs .
Why would you eliminate the " porn " because you 're worried about scaring off potential customers ?
Porn has been estimated to generate more than $ 10B/year !
This makes sense since we , as a species , have evolved to fixate on sex all the time .
Apple should be cashing in , not out if they are worried about maintaining customers .
Even the puritanical types who publically denounce porn have been known to engage in a little private titillation... which the iPhone is perfect for .
I do n't find the lewd apps offensive , but I do find the stupid ones like iFart moronic to the point that they offend me .
I guess I would rather live with a bunch of horny people than a bunch of morons .
It would have been a lot more intelligent to just develop an adult app section that requires credit card age verification .
I suspect this has more to do with Steve 's personal preferences than anything else .
Any stop saying " If you want porn , you can just use Safari !
" It 's a silly argument .
How would you feel if someone told you " If you want to check your mail , you can just use Safari .
" The same goes for the weather app , the calendar app , the maps app and any of the other apps you can buy in the app store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a really bad business decision, regardless of one's beliefs.
Why would you eliminate the "porn" because you're worried about scaring off potential customers?
Porn has been estimated to generate more than $10B/year!
This makes sense since we, as a species, have evolved to fixate on sex all the time.
Apple should be cashing in, not out if they are worried about maintaining customers.
Even the puritanical types who publically denounce porn have been known to engage in a little private titillation... which the iPhone is perfect for.
I don't find the lewd apps offensive, but I do find the stupid ones like iFart moronic to the point that they offend me.
I guess I would rather live with a bunch of horny people than a bunch of morons.
It would have been a lot more intelligent to just develop an adult app section that requires credit card age verification.
I suspect this has more to do with Steve's personal preferences than anything else.
Any stop saying "If you want porn, you can just use Safari!
"  It's a silly argument.
How would you feel if someone told you "If you want to check your mail, you can just use Safari.
"  The same goes for the weather app, the calendar app, the maps app and any of the other apps you can buy in the app store.      </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247348</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset</i></p><p>
&nbsp; Shoot.</p><p>Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of <b>VirtualCunt</b>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>I'm not sure why anyone would want to play a game where they pretend to date my Ex.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple Bans Sexy Apps , Developers Upset   Shoot.Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt .
.I 'm not sure why anyone would want to play a game where they pretend to date my Ex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset
  Shoot.Damn.... here I was just about to submit v1.00 of VirtualCunt.
.I'm not sure why anyone would want to play a game where they pretend to date my Ex.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538</id>
	<title>Even a swimwear merchant app that sold bikinis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266949680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too, for showing girls in bikinis. <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear\_seller\_hit\_by\_apples\_removal\_of\_sexual\_apps.html" title="appleinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear\_seller\_hit\_by\_apples\_removal\_of\_sexual\_apps.html</a> [appleinsider.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too , for showing girls in bikinis .
http : //www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear \ _seller \ _hit \ _by \ _apples \ _removal \ _of \ _sexual \ _apps.html [ appleinsider.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A merchant app that sold bikinis was dropped too, for showing girls in bikinis.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/23/swimwear\_seller\_hit\_by\_apples\_removal\_of\_sexual\_apps.html [appleinsider.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247324</id>
	<title>Re:No, this isn't censorship</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1266952260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think there is a good analogy for what this is. The problem is not what they choose to carry in their store front. The problem is the measures they take to lock you into an exclusive deal with their storefront. The customer can always go somewhere else, but it does make for a crappy product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there is a good analogy for what this is .
The problem is not what they choose to carry in their store front .
The problem is the measures they take to lock you into an exclusive deal with their storefront .
The customer can always go somewhere else , but it does make for a crappy product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think there is a good analogy for what this is.
The problem is not what they choose to carry in their store front.
The problem is the measures they take to lock you into an exclusive deal with their storefront.
The customer can always go somewhere else, but it does make for a crappy product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246496</id>
	<title>unbelievable, yet very believable</title>
	<author>cyber1kenobi</author>
	<datestamp>1266949560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple makes some of the dumbest moves in regards to the lifeline of their app store - the developers!  Boy are they good at pissing people off!  I'm a very happy shareholder (picked it up at 27 back when...!) but every day there's some new twist that they've pulled and alienated this group or that.  I think parental controls and allowing any app that doesn't do harm to the phone itself would be their best stance - how many sales are they missing because of these China-like rules?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple makes some of the dumbest moves in regards to the lifeline of their app store - the developers !
Boy are they good at pissing people off !
I 'm a very happy shareholder ( picked it up at 27 back when... !
) but every day there 's some new twist that they 've pulled and alienated this group or that .
I think parental controls and allowing any app that does n't do harm to the phone itself would be their best stance - how many sales are they missing because of these China-like rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple makes some of the dumbest moves in regards to the lifeline of their app store - the developers!
Boy are they good at pissing people off!
I'm a very happy shareholder (picked it up at 27 back when...!
) but every day there's some new twist that they've pulled and alienated this group or that.
I think parental controls and allowing any app that doesn't do harm to the phone itself would be their best stance - how many sales are they missing because of these China-like rules?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248250</id>
	<title>Re:Please...</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1266955680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.</p><p>They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.</p></div><p>So all the apps that were pulled for collateral damage are nothing important?  (See above post for the Bikini seller that had the app pulled - and that wasn't the only one)  </p><p> Also compare this with Apples statement when questioned over why SI and Playboy didn't have their apps pulled - "Because they were established brands".  So Old porn is good, but new porn is not???</p><p> Or what about the "iWobble boobs" (or whatever it was called - and yep terrible juvenile name) which didn't supply content - you had to download and add your own content.  That is like last year when the eBook reader was not approved because you could download the Karma Sutra</p><p>I can understand why some people want to remove some lower common denominator apps from the App store, but the heavy handed manner in which Apple did this does smack of censorship, and they had to be aware of what they were doing</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else 's boobies.They 've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.So all the apps that were pulled for collateral damage are nothing important ?
( See above post for the Bikini seller that had the app pulled - and that was n't the only one ) Also compare this with Apples statement when questioned over why SI and Playboy did n't have their apps pulled - " Because they were established brands " .
So Old porn is good , but new porn is not ? ? ?
Or what about the " iWobble boobs " ( or whatever it was called - and yep terrible juvenile name ) which did n't supply content - you had to download and add your own content .
That is like last year when the eBook reader was not approved because you could download the Karma SutraI can understand why some people want to remove some lower common denominator apps from the App store , but the heavy handed manner in which Apple did this does smack of censorship , and they had to be aware of what they were doing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.So all the apps that were pulled for collateral damage are nothing important?
(See above post for the Bikini seller that had the app pulled - and that wasn't the only one)   Also compare this with Apples statement when questioned over why SI and Playboy didn't have their apps pulled - "Because they were established brands".
So Old porn is good, but new porn is not???
Or what about the "iWobble boobs" (or whatever it was called - and yep terrible juvenile name) which didn't supply content - you had to download and add your own content.
That is like last year when the eBook reader was not approved because you could download the Karma SutraI can understand why some people want to remove some lower common denominator apps from the App store, but the heavy handed manner in which Apple did this does smack of censorship, and they had to be aware of what they were doing
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247698</id>
	<title>Re:Please...</title>
	<author>UnanimousCoward</author>
	<datestamp>1266953580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's your opinion, of course.  But remember that pr0n, <b>more than anything else</b>, drives technology...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's your opinion , of course .
But remember that pr0n , more than anything else , drives technology.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's your opinion, of course.
But remember that pr0n, more than anything else, drives technology...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248604</id>
	<title>Re:Please...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266956760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.</i></p><p>It may surprise you to know that there are female app devs trying to make a quick buck off their own boobies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else 's boobies.It may surprise you to know that there are female app devs trying to make a quick buck off their own boobies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.It may surprise you to know that there are female app devs trying to make a quick buck off their own boobies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246896</id>
	<title>Over "perceived inconsistency"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see anyone truly upset over perceived inconsistencies in Apple's policies. Those screaming loudest are all about "censorship" and the end of democracy, or frustrated adolescent fantasies, etc, etc. The "besides, they still have \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and that's inconsistent" argument is thrown in as a freebie, not as the main argument. It's an attempt at logic: if you can't be 100\% consistent, then you're wrong to do anything in the first place. Uh huh.</p><p>I'm not sure whether those screaming loudest are living the Frat House Lifestyle (tm) or if Slashdot is allowing 6-year-olds ("THAT'S NOT F-A-I-R !!") to post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see anyone truly upset over perceived inconsistencies in Apple 's policies .
Those screaming loudest are all about " censorship " and the end of democracy , or frustrated adolescent fantasies , etc , etc .
The " besides , they still have \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ , and that 's inconsistent " argument is thrown in as a freebie , not as the main argument .
It 's an attempt at logic : if you ca n't be 100 \ % consistent , then you 're wrong to do anything in the first place .
Uh huh.I 'm not sure whether those screaming loudest are living the Frat House Lifestyle ( tm ) or if Slashdot is allowing 6-year-olds ( " THAT 'S NOT F-A-I-R ! !
" ) to post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see anyone truly upset over perceived inconsistencies in Apple's policies.
Those screaming loudest are all about "censorship" and the end of democracy, or frustrated adolescent fantasies, etc, etc.
The "besides, they still have \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and that's inconsistent" argument is thrown in as a freebie, not as the main argument.
It's an attempt at logic: if you can't be 100\% consistent, then you're wrong to do anything in the first place.
Uh huh.I'm not sure whether those screaming loudest are living the Frat House Lifestyle (tm) or if Slashdot is allowing 6-year-olds ("THAT'S NOT F-A-I-R !!
") to post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246828</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1266950580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.</p></div><p>That's an argument against regulation, not against consumer outrage. I don't like it and <b>because of that</b> I'm expressing my intent to take my products elsewhere, informing everyone else about the problem so they too can make an informed decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they do n't stock is really none of your business , and if you do n't like , take your products and have someone else carry it.That 's an argument against regulation , not against consumer outrage .
I do n't like it and because of that I 'm expressing my intent to take my products elsewhere , informing everyone else about the problem so they too can make an informed decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they don't stock is really none of your business, and if you don't like, take your products and have someone else carry it.That's an argument against regulation, not against consumer outrage.
I don't like it and because of that I'm expressing my intent to take my products elsewhere, informing everyone else about the problem so they too can make an informed decision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246790</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1266950460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right citizen, bend over and take it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right citizen , bend over and take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right citizen, bend over and take it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246872</id>
	<title>How about banning basic text editing:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(.)(.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( . ) ( .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(.)(.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008</id>
	<title>No, this isn't censorship</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1266951240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Censorship is when a third party prevents you from reading or viewing or watching content that you want to. In this case, Apple is the arbiter of their own app store for their own devices, and you know when you buy it that they get to choose what you do and do not have access to in the app store. It may be stupid and petty and lazy and a general sign of their incompetence, but that's not the same thing as censorship.</p><p>If Apple prevented you from viewing sexy items on the internet in general, then that would be censorship. This is more akin to a quickie mart that stops carrying Hustler. There are still other places to get Hustler.</p><p>(Side note: this is a good and valid argument for markets and competition. Where Apple fails, you can choose another vendor. In the market for tablet devices, the worst outcome is that you were swindled out of several hundred dollars. You just need slight regulation to make sure they don't catch fire or hand out your bank information out of the box.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Censorship is when a third party prevents you from reading or viewing or watching content that you want to .
In this case , Apple is the arbiter of their own app store for their own devices , and you know when you buy it that they get to choose what you do and do not have access to in the app store .
It may be stupid and petty and lazy and a general sign of their incompetence , but that 's not the same thing as censorship.If Apple prevented you from viewing sexy items on the internet in general , then that would be censorship .
This is more akin to a quickie mart that stops carrying Hustler .
There are still other places to get Hustler .
( Side note : this is a good and valid argument for markets and competition .
Where Apple fails , you can choose another vendor .
In the market for tablet devices , the worst outcome is that you were swindled out of several hundred dollars .
You just need slight regulation to make sure they do n't catch fire or hand out your bank information out of the box .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Censorship is when a third party prevents you from reading or viewing or watching content that you want to.
In this case, Apple is the arbiter of their own app store for their own devices, and you know when you buy it that they get to choose what you do and do not have access to in the app store.
It may be stupid and petty and lazy and a general sign of their incompetence, but that's not the same thing as censorship.If Apple prevented you from viewing sexy items on the internet in general, then that would be censorship.
This is more akin to a quickie mart that stops carrying Hustler.
There are still other places to get Hustler.
(Side note: this is a good and valid argument for markets and competition.
Where Apple fails, you can choose another vendor.
In the market for tablet devices, the worst outcome is that you were swindled out of several hundred dollars.
You just need slight regulation to make sure they don't catch fire or hand out your bank information out of the box.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249964</id>
	<title>An APPLE a Day ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266918180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An Apple a day keeps the pervs away.</p><p>Apple, sanitized for your protection.</p><p>Apple, the white bread of computing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An Apple a day keeps the pervs away.Apple , sanitized for your protection.Apple , the white bread of computing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Apple a day keeps the pervs away.Apple, sanitized for your protection.Apple, the white bread of computing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246862</id>
	<title>37 comments?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only 37 comments as yet??</p><p>Where are all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ folks on such a delicate matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 37 comments as yet ?
? Where are all ./ folks on such a delicate matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 37 comments as yet?
?Where are all ./ folks on such a delicate matter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247544</id>
	<title>Well dog my cats... I get it now!</title>
	<author>Underyed</author>
	<datestamp>1266953100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.)Ban all "politically charged" apps.

2.)Ban Google Voice for duplication of phone functionality but leave tons of dialer apps up that do just that.

3.)Ban sexy apps with the exception of the Sports illustrated swimsuit edition.

4.)?

5.)Profit!

I finally figured out what the "?" means!

? = Double standards folks. Get used to it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Ban all " politically charged " apps .
2. ) Ban Google Voice for duplication of phone functionality but leave tons of dialer apps up that do just that .
3. ) Ban sexy apps with the exception of the Sports illustrated swimsuit edition .
4. ) ? 5. ) Profit !
I finally figured out what the " ?
" means !
? = Double standards folks .
Get used to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
)Ban all "politically charged" apps.
2.)Ban Google Voice for duplication of phone functionality but leave tons of dialer apps up that do just that.
3.)Ban sexy apps with the exception of the Sports illustrated swimsuit edition.
4.)?

5.)Profit!
I finally figured out what the "?
" means!
? = Double standards folks.
Get used to it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248248</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>jaraxle</author>
	<datestamp>1266955680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty much similar to Blockbuster "censoring" porn in their video rental stores.</p><p>You can get porn from other video rental stores, but it's Blockbuster's decision to not provide it from their stores.  How does this infringe upon your rights at all?  Don't like their stance on what they choose to carry in their own store?  Don't provide them with your business.  It's as simple as that.</p><p>~jaraxle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty much similar to Blockbuster " censoring " porn in their video rental stores.You can get porn from other video rental stores , but it 's Blockbuster 's decision to not provide it from their stores .
How does this infringe upon your rights at all ?
Do n't like their stance on what they choose to carry in their own store ?
Do n't provide them with your business .
It 's as simple as that. ~ jaraxle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty much similar to Blockbuster "censoring" porn in their video rental stores.You can get porn from other video rental stores, but it's Blockbuster's decision to not provide it from their stores.
How does this infringe upon your rights at all?
Don't like their stance on what they choose to carry in their own store?
Don't provide them with your business.
It's as simple as that.~jaraxle</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248884</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps another Sudoku app...</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1266957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Justin Timberlake must be PISSED.  All that effort to bring sexy back, and Apple goes and squashes it like a bug.  Figures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Justin Timberlake must be PISSED .
All that effort to bring sexy back , and Apple goes and squashes it like a bug .
Figures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Justin Timberlake must be PISSED.
All that effort to bring sexy back, and Apple goes and squashes it like a bug.
Figures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246642</id>
	<title>Re:This Is Not Censorship At All</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rights violated? No. Censorship? It most certainly is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rights violated ?
No. Censorship ?
It most certainly is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rights violated?
No. Censorship?
It most certainly is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249172</id>
	<title>Re:Please...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1266958320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies. They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.</p></div><p>First they came for the emulators, and I said nothing because I had not written an emulator.<br>Then they came for the boobies and I said nothing because I was a puritanical closet pervert.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else 's boobies .
They 've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.First they came for the emulators , and I said nothing because I had not written an emulator.Then they came for the boobies and I said nothing because I was a puritanical closet pervert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people up in arms are sleazy dudes out to make a quick buck off of someone else's boobies.
They've had their day and nothing of value has been lost.First they came for the emulators, and I said nothing because I had not written an emulator.Then they came for the boobies and I said nothing because I was a puritanical closet pervert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31257084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31261348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31253546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31253412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1642241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31249058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31253546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31261348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31252182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246850
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247062
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247230
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247382
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251950
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247184
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247008
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31253412
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31251502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31250164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31247210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31248582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1642241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31246980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1642241.31257084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
