OSNews

There's an old saying, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

That, effectively, is one of the drivers in terms of evaluation of an App on the iPhone.

If an App on the iPhone leads to "objectionable material", then that material may just as well be bundled in within the App itself. At a minimum, the application is a gateway to objectionable material.

Now it's easy to say "I can surf the most heinous sites on the internet on Safari on the iPhone, what's the difference?"

Simple, the difference is that Apple doesn't know or care what you surf, and, specifically, it hasn't SEEN what you surf.

But if you create an app that acts as a portal to "heinous material", then the app is effectively that heinous material, and Apple isn't going to let that application through.

Apple tested this app and "saw" questionable content. If Apple had not see this content, the App would have likely passed. Because later, if someone complained that "I ran this app from the iPhone and got terrible content", Apple could justifiably say "well, it wasn't there when we reviewed the applications." They have reasonable deniability about the content.

But, here, Apple "saw" the content, now it "knows" it's there, so they're standing behind their content policy.

I think it's fair that Apple would allow a dedicated "disney.com" RSS reader rather than a dedicated "sexwithgoatsonfire.com" reader.

Perhaps later if they enable Parental Controls on the phone and app store, you can get your "sexwithgoatsonfire.com" RSS feedreader.