hah -- any one of you would do the same faced with an overzealous auto-linker js on IRCCloud, a discussion there about the README.md it points to and access to a corporate credit card. it was very funny at the time, i promise. here's our "announcement": http://blog.echonest.com/post/9332881544/new-pyechonest-on-g...
The article says "He quoted an NBC spokesman as saying: "Our social media department was actually alerted to it by Twitter and then we filled out the form and submitted it."
I can read this in one of two ways: Twitter (the company) alerted NBC, or Twitter users on the social network Twitter alerted NBC. There's not much clarity there, but obviously the former is scary and confusing and the latter happens all the time.
Depends a lot on context. If Twitter had said "FYI, one of your e-mail addresses is currently publicly visible on our service, expect a deluge of e-mail", I don't see a huge problem. If they said "Hey, want us to ban this guy?" then that's something different.
The team working closely with NBC around our Olympics partnership did proactively identify a Tweet that was in violation of the Twitter Rules and encouraged them to file a support ticket with our Trust and Safety team to report the violation, as has now been reported publicly.
Looks like your latter situation is exactly how it went down.
My reading of this is a complete miscommunication. Nowhere in Apple's email does it state they had a problem with content. I really have no idea how she jumped to that conclusion. The very simple and likely explanations are either (1) she did not remove all links or (2) the reviewer did not closely check to see if she removed all links.
In other words, yet another story about Apple "censorship" that turns out not to be about Apple censorship.
People make a big deal of it when it first comes out and bash Apple when its on the front page of HN.
Now that it has turned out to be false, it is no longer on the front page of HN.
Next time someone says something bad about Apple, the denizens of HN will talk about how "apple's always censoring" and this will be one of the stories they're talking about.
Just as they said effectively the same thing in this comment.
Don't see any emails about the content block that she is referring to this post. I see emails about previous issues of her having links to Amazon in her ebooks. I am very curious about this, because I doubt just saying the word "Amazon" can really be an instant rejection -- and a quick search of the iBook store shows tons of books about Amazon itself, things like "How to Self Publish on the Amazon Kindle" et al.
'I received an email from Apple’s iBookstore that How To Think Sideways—Lesson 6: How to Discover (or Create) Your Story’s Market has been pulled for containing links to a “Competing Website” and that in order to have the lesson put back on sale, I’ll have to remove the offending links.'
I'm strongly inclined to believe that she is being truthful and fair in representing that received email based on her tone and responses in the comments [at least] of her site. She seems only concerned with allowing students using Apple products to buy an uncrippled/non-bawdlerised product.
>I doubt just saying the word "Amazon" can really be an instant rejection //
Indeed, it appears she links to Amazon in the ebook as that is [she says] the only place that one can learn the technique she is teaching.
Edit:
Apologies I think I went in too soon with that comment. It appears it is much worse for Apple:
Quoting Ms Lisle again (http://hollylisle.com/apple-made-its-decision-my-turn/?awt_l...) 'You don’t tell someone “The problem is the live links,” and then, when that person has complied with your change request and removed the live links, turn around and say, “No, no. The problem is the CONTENT. You can’t mention Amazon in your lesson.'
So it sounds like she complied by removing links and then they told her it wasn't the links but the content.
There's a difference between believing someone's honesty and trusting someone's interpretation. I believe she's being honest; that she is telling the truth as she sees it. But I would like to judge for myself what Apple said.
Verily. Here interpretative skills don't appear to be impaired (see her comments on [paraphrasing] 'this is not censorship it's business practice') and there is so little to interpret in being asked [initially] to remove only live links in order to get an ebook allowed that I can't readily see how it's an issue of objectivity. Hence my inclination towards trusting her presentation of the situation.
My initial thought was that it might be affiliate links she'd included but then her failure to mention such a thing would be brazen dishonesty IMO and not [accidental] situational interpretative failure or simple bias.
I think it's more likely than not that her interpretation would agree with mine, but it's still an unknown. The parent post of this thread was asking if we could remove that unknown, so I think it's quite reasonable.
Book file contains links from competitors: Amazon,
in the chapter Q&A 6, under “Question 9″
From there, She claims:
As noted, however, I HAD changed the lesson, HAD removed
the links, HAD complied with their request. Since the
links were gone, their only possible objection—NOT STATED
—was content.
There is no way for us to verify whether she removed all those links. Even if she did, I can think of explanations that are at least as likely (e.g. human error on either side) as the conclusion she IMO jumps to.
Disclaimer: I have zero experience dealing with the iBookStore.
She isn't claiming it is an instant rejection I don't think. But it sounds like they flagged it initially based on links, she removed the links and then they said it was actually the content itself.
Just an FYI, the existence of content in an Apple Store does not mean that the content is in anyway approved by Apple. Rather, it was approved by a single reviewer. You can submit something, get denied for a specific reason, and then resubmit and get a new reviewer, and get through without an issue.
Furthermore, the existence of content does not mean your content/app that has the same feature will be let in. Heck, during review, you can comment on the fact that other content/apps has or does exactly what you are doing, but that does not matter in any way.
dalton, i saw a dear friend support you over my twitter and I clicked but have NO IDEA what this does? Seriously, I am pretty internet savvy but all I read was "feed platform" and how you weren't going to sell my data-- but what data? What is it? you might want to update the landing page a bit :)
I was very upset when I saw that result but a good scientist never shows his bias :(
I do really think that once we get better at "artist evolvement" (separating Pink Floyd into two or three separate artists as they had very distinct phases) the PF signifier will drop. I only listen to Syd and "It Would Be So Nice" era PF and definitely am not a Romney booster.
Even if you divide it, what do you get, the relativist, existentialist, anti-war and anti-corporate mainstream era contrasted with the full-on acid freak hippie Syd era? Both seem pretty culturally liberal to me.
Maybe, would be cool to try it on location data! As I stated in there, we only used TPs that had US set as location, so the data will be very US-focused.
I guess he was misled by the URL and title of the document, both of which say Manifesto and not manifest.
On a less snarky note (sorry about that), it seems like a good check list for putting together an event I'd like to attend. As someone else noted, none of the demo-parties and hackathons I've attended have ever checked off every box. On the other hand, it might be a cultural thing -- I imagine these events to be more developed around the valley where they're more common.
This checklist seems very centred on the UK hackday format (which I very much enjoy). I've noticed US hackdays have a somewhat different culture, with different expectations, as do gamejams, etc
