Sext Message Not Sent
Hey, you. Yes you. I wanna sex you up. DUM? DUSL? IF/IB?
Sorry, that was awfully forward of me wasn't it? In future, would you like to prevent the distribution of this kind of sickening, sexual slur? Well, the future is now. Fear not fascist parents of the free world: There's an app for that. Once again it's Apple to the rescue. For never again shall we be exposed to the toxic indignity of forbidden inflections and the radioactive sickness of sexual syntax. Thanks be to Jobs. Amen.
Apple filed a patent in 2008 for software that prevents users sending text messages that contain 'inappropriate' language. Within the last few days, the patent has been granted. The concept is to attempt to restrict people, particularly young children, sending sexually explicit messages.
Enforcing set standards for grammar and language, it is thought that the technology will compare the text content against a list of 'offensive' terminology and prevent the propagation of the message if the standards are not met, causing the user to have to rewrite the message. Worse still, the message could be intercepted by an 'administrator.' Who would presumably 'administrate.' Which is clearly clandestine for obliterate, and refers not just to your text, but to you. Apple will obliterate you.
Apple hope to tailor the tech to cover deliberate spelling mistakes, such as vagani, which sounds like an Italian shoe company, and common 'sext' acronyms, of which there are more than you can comprehend. Q2C anyone? Working titles for the software include; iSafe, iFacism and iWithdrawYourFreedomOfSpeech.
Thankfully the technology will not be installed as standard. Instead parents could download and enforce the tool upon their child's phone themselves. Apple claims they're 'enabling control.' Enabling parents to withdraw control from their children.
Fortunately for members of the UK who value their right to talk dirty, and we do, the patent was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, meaning it may not yet reach our humble, if rather high on the teen-pregnancy rating shores.
What's the problem with 'sexts' anyway? Does Steve suppose it will quell teenage pregnancies if horny kids can no longer send and receive 'I wana fuk u hard lolz'? Sure, their time would be better spent reading a book, but if kids get a kick out of poorly articulated texts with broad sexual connotations who is Jobsworth to stop them?
I suspect the true motives are more sinister than a simple anti-porn campaign. Cunning capitalism and an attempt to shift stock seems more likely; then again, I'm a cynic. Make your own mind up.
Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati