I don't understand the purpose of this post. The author seems to disagree with the rejection, but more interested in promoting the rejection than actually getting the application published.<p>Clearly there is no attempt made to assuage the notion that the application is "politically charged", with language like "The rejection of iSinglePayer from the App Store is but the latest blow to supporters of single-payer health reform" dominating. The author instead urges readers to "spread the word on Apple's censorship", which seems like a pretty blatant attempt to coerce a private enterprise to publish his political agenda. Is that <i>really</i> the sort of thing you want to have associated with your cause?
Ugh. Nothing stinks more than when somebody feels wronged and starts throwing around the the c-word. In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place. And when it comes to Apple's private app store, ya don't. If you want to express your views on single-payer health care (a cause with which I agree, btw) without fear of censorship, go demonstrate peacefully in front of your local courthouse.
I'm puzzled by this rejection.<p>"Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store)<p>I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)
oh, man. i was all ready to vote this up until i read the article's real headline: "iSinglePayer iPhone App Censored by Apple."<p>i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.