I wonder what the boardroom meeting for this was like. Despite the outcome, I doubt the devs were pitching censorship as the reason for implementing this.
To the shocking number of people here who are justifying this or explaining how it only affect swipe input as if that makes it better: soft coercion is still coercion. If I made a physical keyboard that stops keys from working when you're about to finish typing something I don't want you to type, but you can still circumvent it, I still made a censorship keyboard. It's a sign of the times with how used tech companies are to 'softly' moderating societal trends by unilaterally tweaking the software that everyone uses.
I wrote something like this a long time ago. The customer's request was: "don't make this software produce swear words on its own". Note: on its own.
Producing "trump is …" when a user wants that is one thing. Producing that when the user wants something else could be construed as coming from the software itself, and we all know that people looking for a shitstorm will seize the opportunity.
So probabilistic software like a swipe interpreter will often be written to avoid some guesses, to lessen the chance of a shitstorm. Users who want that output have to use a dependable input method instead of one based on probabilities and guesswork.
IMO this avoidance isn't among the ten worst consequences of shitstorms.
Autocomplete should be following the user's own behaviour. If a user thinks that "trans women are men", then it will be not a universal experience, it is just this separated user's own statistics.
I can imagine that autocompleting following users' behavior could bite people who do a lot of sexting or could reveal other secrets, ex. `the door code is`
It already does this. I've found it'll suggest my kids' names frequently, after just 1-2 letters. It didn't do this before they were born. I assume it's training on my previous messages.
> As another example, imagine if "trans women are" autosuggested "men" or "ugly" for the next prediction.
Or imagine if it auto-completed "the Holocaust is" with "a myth created by the ZOG"! I don't like these "imagine if X was Y" arguments because X isn't Y. Refusing to auto-complete "the occupied territories" (X) is really not the same thing as refusing to auto-complete antisemitism or group-based hate speech (Y). Argue whether X is right or wrong without changing the subject.
An even more generous interpretation (not saying this is the case and a complete excuse, but might explain some of the choices) is that there are some phrases people do not want to type by accident.
“Male chauvinist pig” is something many would be very upset to send to their boss by accident. So it’s perhaps understandable some such phrases are not excluded from the guesswork.
What I don't understand is how you can type something that is close enough to “Male chauvinist pig” that an uncensored autocorrect will guess it, without intending to type “Male chauvinist pig”. That phrase and others like it, even if one or two letters are wrong or swiped through incorrectly, is unambiguous.
Even on a single-word basis, "male" might be make, makes, Maria, Maia, narrow, Maddow, marrow, Mariya, Marita, mafia, males, mallow, Maslow, male's, or masks. "Chauvinist" might be coatings, costing, coaxing, coasting, crating, contingency, contingent, contingencies, chauvinistic, Chauvin, or chaining. "Pig" might be PC, PIC, PCC, pox, poof, PVC, pH, put, pug, PV, Pooh, log, or pub. These are all possibilities that were actually presented when I tried to swipe these words on my Android phone, twice each. Taking into account additional context will broaden this set of possibly confusable words, not narrow it.
We might not talk about a "narrow contingency put" or "Maria crating PVC" very often, but an uncensored autocorrect would almost certainly correct those phrases to the far more common "male chauvinist pig" in the rare cases where someone did try to swipe them.
Step 1: a word of 4-6 letters that's somewhat close to "male". Say "name" or "masked". Look at the key positions, you'll see what I mean.
Step 2: a word that's even less close to chauvinist, and that makes sense after the word you intended, but no sense after "male", so the guesser picks "chauvinist", based on its incorrect first guess and your second swipe.
Isnt the regular keyboard on iOS typing also probabilistic? I thought the entire claim to fame of the original iPhone keyboard was how it could determine which key you meant based on letter frequency / word usage / etc. Does that mean it can also stop you from typing certain things? So whats the difference between the swipe interpreter and the fat finger interpreter?
I'm guessing that somebody tried to swipe "Halas" or "Hamid" and it came out "Hamas", or "Tibetan obedience" and ended up with "Tibetan independence", which was followed by a visit from the police or being blacklisted from PayPal. Or "I want to question your artsy friend about the gallery" came out as "I want to question your sexuality, friend about the gallery".
There are cases like https://gizmodo.com/a-cellphones-missing-dot-kills-two-peopl... where, in 02008, Ramazan Çalçoban texted his estranged wife in Turkish, "you change the topic every time you run out of arguments", but the lack of the Turkish dotless "i" on his cellphone turned "sıkısınca" into "sikisinca", which looks more like a misspelling of "sikisince". So he ended up texting her, "You change the topic every time they are fucking you."
Long story short, his father-in-law murdered him for thus insulting his daughter's fidelity, following which he murdered the daughter in question, and the father-in-law committed suicide in prison.
So there might be certain words and phrases that it's best for your computers to not send to other people on your behalf unless they're really sure you mean them.
Gizmodo's article did suggest banning knives from the homes of stupid people, Turkish or otherwise. Sadly, I don't think this degree of insanity is that unusual anywhere.
- There is a chance, quantified by some metric, where a person is suggested a word that is offensive to them or their culture because a probabilistic model made the wrong decision.
- There is no chance that the above happens.
Apple will choose the latter, time and time again, because they are risk averse and freedom is not particularly high on their values list. We’re talking about the company that doesn’t let you type the Taiwanese flag in China, or the pride flag in Russia. It’s no surprise you’re not allowed to swipe “fuck” in the United States. I used to work at Apple.
At the risk of being controversial, isn't there also the choice not to implement autocomplete and then avoid the above conundrum, especially once you factor in the fact that they can't possibly catch all combinations of words/letters so a grey list isn't actually an effective solution either, other than it provides a we tried defense.
The ultimate problem being some subset of consumers want autocomplete and some subset will retain the right to be offended and some subset will be both of those?
EDIT: And at what point does accidently sending male chauvinist pig to your boss because of autocomplete absolve you of the responsibility of reading the message before you send it?
Is there any reason apple can't give us the choice of.
> If I made a physical keyboard that stops keys from working when you're about to finish typing something I don't want you to type
For anyone wondering the degree to which this is an exaggeration: The iPhone will physically work against you by invisibly changing the size of keys on the keyboard.
Every iPhone, since the very first, dynamically resizes the hitboxes of the iOS keyboard. This is invisible, can not be disabled, and the hitboxes overlap those of other keys.
They used to advertise this as "dynamic tap zones" but they removed the video for it, but you can see their advertising for it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPmVKyhyl9U
The point is that the level of imprecision in swipe means there's more guessing; they don't want to guess things that frustrate the user. It is not censoriousness, it is minimising surprise.
I was there for a couple Google Suggest code yellows around naughty or racist suggestions and it's basically an email going out that's like "The Chinese government is making us remove offensive suggestions from Suggest. We need any native Chinese speakers here Saturday to come up with a list of anything that might be considered offensive. Pizza and swag will be provided." Or it's reactive to PR flaps: "[why are black] autocompletes to [...people so dumb]. Can we please block this suggestion?"
The concern with features like these is that the suggestions are considered to be corporate speech that the company is endorsing, and so it can be held liable for any that break relevant laws. Internet companies are generally considered common carriers when they're just passing around stuff other people write, but when they are generating their own content through machine-learning algorithms they are held to be the actual responsible party.
I'm surprised we haven't seen more lawsuits and criminal prosecution against LLMs so far, though it probably helps that the current U.S. president is a combative asshole that prides himself on how much he can offend every group under the sun.
I rather my swype words not be any of those options, because more often than not it picks the wrong or worst word possible, imagine sending your boss a text and it auto picks the worst word soup imaginable and as you proof read, oops you hit send.
I doubt it has anything to do with coercion. It’s you ever used swipe you’d know that you often you do go over the wrong letters so it’s probably just to stop bad stuff coming up that people didn’t intend.
I heard stenographers struggle with this a bit. They have to retype "undesirable" words multiple times to confirm. Because the risk of putting a bad word is too high.
> It's a sign of the times with how used tech companies are to 'softly' moderating societal trends by unilaterally tweaking the software that everyone uses.
I realize that there are many reasons to be critical of our digital overlords. This is not one of them.
This is in no way comparable to a physical keyboard stopping you from typing something, because what you are typing is entirely deterministic. Most computer software will underline only misspelled words or grammatical errors, not politically charged statements, because it is a literal interpretation of what the user typed.
Swipe typing and auto-complete are different because they are interpreting the user's input. There is no way to ensure the interpretation is correct. For the sake of both the users and the company, you ensure the interpretations are the ones that cause no harm.
> To the shocking number of people here who are justifying this or explaining how it only affect swipe input as if that makes it better: soft coercion is still coercion.
Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. Most likely it is implemented in such a way to produce the least amount of outrage.
> I wonder what the boardroom meeting for this was like.
"When testing autocomplete, we found some cases where it produces undesirable completions. Imagine if someone typed 'nazis are' and the autocomplete suggested 'good'. How fast would that screenshot get around social media with a tweet comparing iPhone to Grok, and turn into a news headline?"
I'm guessing that that's how this started. Then, a few steps later, "we're getting into China, what do we need to do to not get in trouble", "hey, we've got this mechanism, what if we add 'Tibetan independence' to it". (Which is bad, but on the same scale as all the other things businesses do to get into what they see as a large market that they can be blocked from at any time.)
Then, a few steps later, after some seriously questionable decision-making, someone had the bright idea to add "iMessage isn't working" to it. Frankly, that's the one I'm actually most baffled by here, because everything else seems like the natural consequence of a combination of bad-PR-avoidance and geopolitical kowtowing.
It’s amazing how many cultural influences stem from Big Tech (even though nobody gives them mandate for such things). I wouldn’t be surprised if the twisted versions of age verification popping up in various governments is lobby money from corps looking to deepen their walled gardens.
These all seem like phrases that people say a lot. If I had to guess what happened here, I’d suspect that the LLM being used for AutoCorrect was not successfully “alignment” (i.e. corporate happyspeak) tuned, it instead reflected the actual statistics of the internet, and the engineers resorted to inelegant brute force after having enormous difficulty getting it to talk like anything but a South Park caricature of Tourette’s.
Come to think of it, intuitively any attempt to solve this by tuning the LLM would make texters sound subtly like claude- in which case absolutely the blacklist is better.
I would be shocked if an LLM is involved in any step of the process here. I guess the odds aren't zero, but swipe input is well over a decade old at this point. I see it as essentially a solved problem that's entirely doable with standard algorithms - not models, let alone the large language kind. Maybe some model could be used to analyze the context and shift the weight slightly to more probable phrases, but at the core, when you look at inputting single words, it's just checking the letters you swiped over, input timing, turning points and adjacent letters against its dictionary.
according to the article, the blacklist appeared at the same time as the switch over to an LLM based auto complete. By my reading, but I’m not the world’s best reader.
Not to dismiss your assertion, but here’s another way of looking at it:
Keyboard swiping involves some prediction work from the system. It is ultimately making a best guess from the keys your finger has passed through. The only truly “accurate” output would be for the keyboard to spell out the gibberish that arises from showing every key that the finger has swiped over. Anything intelligible is a guess.
Now because it is a guess, some may question the system or its makers, “Why did you guess this, and not that?” It is easy to see how this can make the maker of the system the target of a politically motivated group. For example, there is a difference between typing out “Dictator Trump” and my keyboard refusing to spell it out - a clear sign of censorship. However, when swiped, because of the guessing nature of the technology, I can understand that the maker of the system (Apple in this case) would not want to be seen endorsing these views. Hence, they do not offer up these politically charged phrases. We are free to type them out, because it is easy to point out that the intent is entirely from the user. However, it is harder to argue for this from the swiping keys gesture.
In my view, this is a more reasonable explanation.
A lot of input methods are probabilistic in their nature. Some other examples are voice to text and even regular digital keyboard input (fat-finger correction that tries to pick the letter you wanted to tap instead of the letter that you actually tapped). So even with your distinction, actually spelling it out with the digital keyboard would not make a difference because the software still has to make a call there. Even if you plugged in a physical keyboard, Apple could still say that the signal passes through its software, which can constitute endorsement, so it should run the checks against that too, just in case. Nothing in your argument stops that.
I fully reject that this makes the situation any better or more justifiable. The job of the software that picks what you have likely just said, swiped or tapped should only concern the given word. If the algorithm decides with 95% certainty that the input was "dictator", that's what it should output. If context is used to better select the candidate word, it should only be done for the purpose of slightly re-weighting the possible options with one transparent algorithm, not for checks against a blacklist.
The reason why I think this is that your line of thinking is unbounded, and there is nothing stopping the next logical move - if Apple can decide 'not to endorse' (representation isn't endorsement, but whatever) views by blacklisting its algorithms from forming certain phrases, why can't they uplink entire paragraphs of your text as you're typing it to dynamically analyze them instead of using a dumb filter, and then decide if the entire text is something they want to allow?
I honestly don't see the difference at all. The user intent is identically clear, regardless of the mode of input. What if it was speech-to-text and the software refused to input my clear annunciation of "fuck"? STT requires some guessing and judgment calls too, but I would definitely call it censorship if the software refused.
How precise does the swiping have to be before you agree that user intent is clear? If my swiping centers on the letters d i v t a t o r - t r u m p, there is absolutely no reason to suspect my intent was anything other than "dictator trump." If the auto-correction failed in that case, they cannot blame it on a lack of precision.
> I wonder what the boardroom meeting for this was like. Despite the outcome, I doubt the devs were pitching censorship as the reason for implementing this.
"Mao?" -"Bad, we think? But we want to allow 'LMAO'"
"Next. Stalin?" -"Hmm... Uncle Joe. Only a few million killed. Not great, not terrible, let's keep him"
"Pol Pot?" -"How many died in the Killing Fields?" "Not enough, keep him off the list".
I just don't think you understand what soft coercion is.
You have door 1 and 2 presented to you by me. You're equally likely to want to pick both options. Door 1 is open. Door 2 is locked, but you can ask me to come over and undo all the locks to open it for you.
Run the test over a large number of people, and then shockingly, it turns out that doing this made more people choose door 1, even though they didn't have a preference beforehand. According to your logic, I did not coerce anyone by designing the choice in this obtuse way because after all you can still choose between the two options. But more people ended up choosing the option I wanted them to pick, weird.
If this coercion didn't work, companies wouldn't be hard at work designing revolutionary new types of dark patterns that make you more likely to accept the cookies, back out of deleting your account or decline enabling an option in the settings they don't want you to use anymore.
I agree with you that the whole concept of restricting terms on a keyboard is dystopian and your analogy to a physical keyboard which prevents you from typing certain terms is apt.
Apple should not be in the business of editorializing their users’ writings. The whole deferral to “well you can just manually type it out” raises the obvious question “then why can’t I swipe it out?”
> raises the obvious question “then why can’t I swipe it out?”
Because then it could look like they're suggesting the word to you, rather than you explicitly selecting it, and they don't want to be accused of suggesting any terms that might be controversial, for the same reason they don't want to be accused of suggesting profanity to their users.
This is the level-headed explanation I can imagine being made earnestly in the board room. But it still boils down to coercion -- in this case, Apple is anticipating and passing along the coercion from sources it believes it could be embarrassed by.
This is how censorship works best, if folks start anticipating and avoiding it so the censors dont even have to exert pressure.
It’s not a censorship issue, at least in the USA, because they’re not afraid of legal pressure from the U.S. government. It’s a public relations issue. Every day, “journalists” and “influencers” are conjuring up some new controversy for the masses to get their panties in a twist about. It’s reasonable to want to avoid that.
HN is hardly immune from this; it’s no small irony that there will be people doing that very thing right here in these comments.
In a parallel universe, an HN comment is complaining that when Apple's raw autocomplete (straight from crowdsourced data with no post-processing) happily suggests the statistically common phrase Sleepy Joe, this is Apple "passing along coercion" from the crowd.
They have a good argument, too! Why should Apple be able to hide behind the excuse that the data is crowdsourced, therefore they have no responsibility for it? Didn't the social networks try that one already?
Damned if you do and damned if you don't, in this situation.
To me, there is a big difference between an Apple algorithm saying "we saw what you typed, would you like to follow that up with <suggestion>?" and "we know what you wanted to type with 90% confidence, but we wouldn't want to say things like that, would we now?". One is predictive, the other acts after the fact.
If Apple doesn't want its autocorrect to suggest statistically likely opinions on divisive topics, then sure, whatever. But when it has a hard blacklist of input it will categorically refuse from the user and editorialize it with nonsensical changes that only serve to avoid the blacklist, that is a very, very bad look.
Exactly. A lot of posters here are excusing this by saying, well, Apple is guessing and doesn't want to guess wrong. They are ignoring the strength of the user's intent, and the calculated likelihood that they intended to type something in one of these blacklists.
If the user tried to swipe-type "Tibetan independence" and got one or two letters wrong, there's still probably a 90% or even 99% likelihood that their intent was to type "Tibetan independence." Not suggesting "Tibetan independence" is censorship, it's not benign carefulness.
We're not talking about Apple accidentally turning "Buttermilk pancakes" into "Muslim extremist."
I remember way back when, Google bombing was still a thing. Lots of people linked the term "miserable failure" to George W. Bush's White House page. Then searching for "miserable failure" in Google ended up with the White House page being the top link.
Much hay was made in some circles that Google was saying George W. Bush's White House was a miserable failure. No tech company wants to be the target of that sort of campaign today. Especially not with a petulant thin skinned narcissist in office that already has demanded protection money to ward off tariffs and other retribution available to the Presidency.
I am typing this on a fucking iPhone right here. Well I never got into swiping because I was too afraid I will fucking offend someone and I want to be in control of what I write.
See I tapped out all those characters just for you.
Yeah, and it’s always done in a way that corners you and makes it sound like you’re fighting to be able to call someone a racial slur - oh, we block x because it’s bad, surely you aren’t for calling people x right?
Unfortunately the broader more important point of censorship is drowned out in noise as designed
Same with how congress names their bills. Wow you’re not voting for the Save The Children from Internet Monsters act? What’s wrong with you?
Oh you mean the bill that grants the government cart blanche to go through anyone’s email without a warrant?
We’re in a tough spot here - there’s just nothing to pattern match to - not cleanly at least
The way a few tech companies can steer trends and conversations is unprecedented. The data collection is unprecedented
Specifically the scale is. People truly don’t understand the scale these companies operate at
No newspaper or wire tapping ever had the reach this stuff has now
> I wonder what the boardroom meeting for this was like. Despite the outcome, I doubt the devs were pitching censorship as the reason for implementing this.
I imagine it went the same way that board meetings about any potential PR disaster go. "How bad of a reputational hit will we take if the NYT runs a headline about some kid getting auto suggested something culturally taboo on their iPad? Would it be more than the reputational hit we will take from the people that are annoyed that we won't auto suggest 'Nazi' to complete the phrase 'Trump is a' while they're typing out their tweets? If so, then let's add the list of "do not suggest" to our auto complete system." And that doesn't begin to count the bad press they could get if someone intentionally tries to get the auto complete system to generate something offensive. See also the AI companies getting shit because people were able to get the image generators to generate porn.
Such is the nature of trying to sell your products in a world where most people treat every single thing done by their technology as an intentional act chosen by the developers to specifically target them. If you want to buy someone else's package, you have to live with the fact that they are going to respond to the incentives to avoid headline scandals and government scrutiny much more strongly than to cater to a idealistic free speech model. This is why having a strong social and cultural free speech norm, that extends far beyond the legal letter of the law is so important. You want society as a whole to broadly consider free speech important and worth having over the inconvenience of Tiny Tim learning a new word today.
My Samsung phone can search images by keyword and it actually works super well. It would be infinitely more useful to me if I could search by a certain class of "pics" and it helped with that. Especially when going through nation boundaries.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg for the iOS Keyboard's issues. They've tried to fix it multiple times, and while it is undeniably better than its lowest point - it is still staggeringly worse than Google's native offering on the Pixel range. Swiping is just so painful, and Microsoft's Swiftkey keyboard is on life support.
Considering arguably the keyboard itself is one of the most common "touch surfaces" on iOS, the level of neglect and level of overall quality is staggering. There's some serious incentive problems at Apple if nobody is tasked with making one of the best digital keyboards in the world.
PS - Whoever came up with the concept, on swipe-style touch keyboards, of the "Tap Map"/Heatmap wherein keys visible location doesn't match their touch area - so that BY DESIGN it always provides an inconsistent user experience needs to be fired into the sun. You literally cannot disable it on most mobile keyboards. It is on iOS's native keyboard AND Microsoft's Swiftkey.
I still think the original iPhone keyboard in 2007 was better than what we have now. It’s been downhill ever since iOS 7.
I used to tell people just type and trust it to work, it was great. Now, even when I type the right thing, the auto-complete will screw it up after the fact. I feel like I need to proofread everything. I wish we could go back to whatever setup they had 19 years ago.
Of course; but my point is just add it to the giant pile of problems with iOS's keyboard. Every part of it has bugs, broken stuff, or annoyances like this, it isn't fit for purpose, and needs significant work.
The fact Apple aren't embarrassed by the iOS keyboard is very surprising and disappointing.
Not predicting to something controversial when doing predictive text isn't censorship. You can still type any of these things. When I swing my finger around wildly it's making a best guess; not jumping to a phrase that makes me look bad or get arrested (in some countries) isn't an awful design choice.
The problem is not accuracy -- the words from the problem phrases are never suggested either. Worse, on the three-word phrases, iOS goes back and changes earlier words to avoid completing the phrase, and removes the original from the suggestions.
I tried typing "propaganda" ten times with 100% accuracy. When it's preceded with "[left] wing", the accuracy drops to 0%.
I'm a pretty quick and accurate swipe typer, and it's so frustrating to repeatedly get the wrong result and get NO signal that it's not my error, meaning I usually try one or two more times.
Picked at random: "right wing propaganda" isn't severe enough a phrase that I instinctively know I'm hitting a swear filter. After swiping the last word iOS goes back and changes the second word to "Wong". In order to understand what was happening and then fix it, I had to backspace (deleting the whole phrase), re-swipe both words, backspace, re-swipe both words again, double tap the incorrect word, backspace, type the word, tap to return to the end of the sentence, and hit space. All to fix one letter.
If this was really about protecting people from accidentally typing these that might land them in hot water, why wouldn't iOS at least offer the word it knew I wanted in the suggestion bar?
That is still predictive. Words can be fine in their own and then contentious when strung together. I agree this is not censorship and that if peoples phones were autocompleting to something horrible then people would be up in arms.
You're deft at using it well enough that their predictive engine can guess your intent. There's never been a swipe keyboard that isn't guessing. Your finger literally goes over many chars it doesn't use. The team building the predictive engine has to make calls balancing their accuracy vs failure modes.
Parent is kind of right too. This should be configurable or people will complain the other way. Even something simple as "I am swiping heck but it's typing hell".
Yea it's not the best option in all situations but fixing voice dictation glitches is way less tapping over the long haul; fingers no go numb using it as much as possible by saving the tap tap tap for absolutely necessary moments
True, it's a very user-oriented feature. That's why they let you disable it, and also let you edit the blacklist, so that you can prevent accidentally typing words that are offensive in your own cultural context.
... Actually I'm not sure if they let you do those.
TBF user choice and customizability aren’t very Apple things in any context.
My Apple Watch has a setting for how long the display stays on before sleep. It’s a dropdown with two choices: 15 seconds or 70 seconds. Would you prefer 30 seconds? Why not 60 seconds instead of 70 you say? Fuck you, you don’t know better than Apple designers. Take it or leave it, best we can do is 15 seconds.
Try getting things done on such a device in a military context. A thousand acronyms adopted by generals who dont know the internet from a hole in the ground. I saw a Gunnary Seargent scream when he saw his rank acronym (GySgt) get autocorrected on a form to gynocologist (i suspect he hit a suggested word popup). It is bad enough having to deal with the keyboard rejecting capital letters in the middle of a word.
I'm surprised by the people here who think this is some way unique to Apple. I'm 99% sure Gboard on Android does the same thing. It seems to be implemented differently and to be a bit more responsive to learning my behavior over time, but I've highly suspected it's been there for years. And I'm surprised no one has noticed this until now?
I'd have tried to work out more detailed behavior but I'm poor enough at swiping (at least with Gboard) that there's little point in trying to pin it down that well, at least for me.
It's obviously not an identical implementation, just the same sort of thing. It seems to be more of a we-won't-suggest-these-but-we'll-learn-them-from-you style.
Double bind. If it doesn't complete, it's borderline censorship. If it suggests an unintended completion at odds with the user's ideology, it is propaganda.
Meta web experience seems to restart your page if you start typing a comment that includes certain political terms and the restart wipes your feed so you may never find the content you were commenting on ever again.
I'd really like to turn off the feature that tries to correct some previous word based on the next word. Most often, that mangles the last word because I swyped the next word wrong, or I just really wanted to type something different.
There are several levels to the autocorrection, so you can definitely do this. I've turned most autocorrect off on my iPhone at this point, because the people I talk to on a regular basis have a much easier time figuring out what I meant from regular misspellings than from the complete rewrite of phrases that iOS is fond of doing.
None of this is of any concern to me. We were raised not to use foul, vulgar language in polite company. Social norms and business settings never allowed this. You could be ostracized or fired.
A distant relative married into a family outside of our normal circle. When he brought along a someone from that side to a Thanksgiving family dinner, her language was loaded with the well known bombs where, at one point, someone brought her into another room for a talking to.
This seems entirely reasonable to me. And to people complaining that this is censorship, it is absolutely not. You can still type these words just fine, it's just not going to interpret swipes that are inherently probabilistic and often ambiguous as potentially risky terms.
This seems like a feature, because I swipe all the time and send messages without realizing I got a word wrong, especially because the word it chooses is usually with the same first letter and approximately same length.
All this is doing is avoiding high-risk words and terms, and making you type them out letter by letter to ensure you aren't sending an accidentally sexual/swear/political message to your Mom/boss/colleague.
This would be problematic and censorship if it were preventing you from typing the phrases at all. It's clearly a helpful feature, however, to prevent you from accidentally typing risky phrases when using something as error-prone as swipe typing.
It's this company or a phone that runs highly privileged software by the world's greatest collector of information that should be private.
Both choices are so awful my phone would not help me autocomplete any of the words I'd use to describe them.
They should just roll back the keyboard 5 to 10 years. Lately the keyboard is super temperamental. Sometimes it works pretty good and sometimes I have to retry multiple times until I get a simple sentence completed. It's really frustrating and it seems to be getting worse.
It is absolutely worse, and other people's know have noticed as well. iOS 26 was the biggest drop in quality by far (haven't updated to 27 yet, so I don't know if it changed at all).
I'm leaving the above 'typo' in as an example of it. I initially typed "people I", and it showed up as "people I" at first, but after typing more it subtly and retroactively changed it to "people's". That's not something that should happen in general. It doesn't make sense grammatically or contextually, and S isn't anywhere near I on the keyboard.
That's not counting at least one other instance in this not-so-long comment where it did the same with "should" -> "show", but I fixed that one. I'm baffled no one at Apple seemed to notice and/or care that they actively made the keyboard worse.
Well I just swyped it into this comment, and double checked in iMessage, although hilariously, it types “isn’t” correctly, but then when I type “real” it “corrects” it by removing the apostrophe.
and all I wanted to do was make a bad joke about how I’m thankful Apple won’t let me ruin my five-year-old’s dreams by sending her an accidental soul crushing text.
On a real note, though, if they could just find a way to fix the issue where every time I type an “i” to say “I“ it instead types an “o” all by itself like I’m some kind of 17th century bard, and then anytime I want to type “a“ as an indefinite article, it will type a single “s” by itself, which almost never makes any grammatical sense in the English language unless you’re talking about the letter “s” itself.
> Apple’s iPhone will not autocomplete references to drugs, sexual acts and, perhaps in the spirit of corporate protection, “iMessage isn’t working”.
It will be interesting as corporate predictive text generators take over the world and companies like Apple will literally build the Jobsian reality distortion field into their products to portray their services as working better than they are.
On the list of "things that get me to think of alternatives" this behavior is pretty high up. It's aggravating to be told what I am allowed to type. I do not want to type manually just to get around a correctness filter.
I could understand if they just wanted to make sure no accidental swipes resulted in shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, or tits. That is defensible (though I'd want a toggle to turn it off and accept the risk). But they go so much farther, into phrases that some genius there decided I should be offended to type. That's too much.
Any company that is concerned about their PR image has to do some filtering of this sort, otherwise they get hit pieces like [1][2] though in both cases, it was (aggregate) human behaviour that was beneath said issue.
The answer seems obvious to me: train a user’s predictive swipe engine on solely their own messages. It gives them an easy out on controversy while removing the need for a filter list.
They do not, in fact, have to. They choose to. Don't ever let parties off the hook for choosing to do something just because they claim to fear PR blips if they don't.
I just don't get this logic. It's a keyboard, after all. It's meant for typing. It's like if my camera refused to take a picture of my butt because it might offend someone.
> It's like if my camera refused to take a picture of my butt because it might offend someone.
Which the iPhone conveniently also does [1].
The problem is, media loves something to feed outrage, and Evangelical pressure groups love to raise a stink over bullshit any journalist with an ounce of self respect would discard.
That's not equivalent and you know it. This, to use your analogy, is like if your camera had an AI upscaler that inserted butts into the picture when they weren't there. Apple is blocking that and so it means you actually have to put the butts in the frame.
Don't speak for me, my friend; I used a direct analogy, and it's absolutely accurate. A keyboard is a keyboard, regardless of the input method. And as a side note - I find the local community's support for corporate censorship deeply repulsive.
Censorship like this isn’t really decided to by one particular person or team of people deciding what to censor.
It’s mostly automated, controversial phrases or topics are detected by analyzing various data sources and getting sentiment analysis from interactions that people have in response. Anything that causes overwhelming polarization or negative reactions or meets other criteria gets blocked. There is no agenda.
How the hell can they defend banning “Trayvon Martin” of all things. Are they now the arbiters responsible for quashing social movements?
This is an _insane_ lever for censorship. Does Israel pay them to omit “the occupied territories”? Is that internal Apple policy irrespective of nation state pressure?
It's not just madness that these exist, but that they are hidden, unexposed to the user, and have no justification or rationale.
Interestingly, I didn’t know who that was so I used the “Look up” feature and it said it was a “Murdered” person, but in the Wikipedia entry it says the shooter was acquitted - ie the victim was not found to have been murdered.
Acquitted means that the jury did not find the evidence persuasive enough to decide guilt for the charged person for the charged crime. It does not mean the victim was not found to have been murdered. Juries don't decide that.
You really didn't know who that was, but had to look into the Wikipedia entry in detail enough to read about a jury decision and then frame it in a different way than written in Wikipedia (which rightly talks about the judicial process related to specific charges brought against Zimmerman, not an absolute statement of facts, such as "victim was not found to have been murdered").
I'm flagging that this doesn't sound like a good faith discussion. The green account raises my priors.
Note that I'm not suggesting that Apple's policy on censorship is good, quite the contrary.
This is exactly censorship via omission. What could possibly be the intent here other than to discourage use of these phrases across wide swaths of the population.
Making it so they aren't in the pool of errors that can be made. I want to be able to type swear words, but I don't want profanity to come out when I try to swipe "duck". Socially, emotionally, and politically loaded phrases make sense to require a bit more care for.
That is a general answer to your question. It is not a specific defense of the particular word list in question. But I can say I've been surprised a few times about what I accidentally swiped on Android. Bitch isn't swipable but I have "bitchiest" readily available, for instance.
Look at all the armchair tough guys crying like children over the slightest whiff of behavior that goes against all these sweatshop child labor exploiting first worlders list of speculative harms.
How adult of you to die on this hill of all hills.
As global COL rises due to Americans hands off political approach the world watches as yall bitch about iPhone keyboards.
That is why people hate modern technology; the people in the industry are out of touch coddled first worlders lacking perspective.
We're not censoring the book. It's simply not on the shelves. You can ask for it by name if you like. You have to spell it out exactly though, or else the librarian will deny any knowledge of it.
When you ask me, thats a kind of good. When I see how people use autocorrect and autocomplete without thinking, I wouldn't wonder when someone is put into jail because a sentence that he never planned to type but send it without knowing because autocorrect has changed it. This feature protects people that mindlessly use autocorrect/complete from jail, bad discussions with their employer or political correct 'friends'.
> a brief glitch in which users of the dictation feature saw the name “Trump” flash across their screen when they spoke the word “racist” into their iPhones
"Glitch" more like "Easter egg" I suspect.
There was an emoji search/copy-paste web site that I use when I need to find an emoji. Once upon a time, when you typed "Trump" into the search, one of the results was the poop emoji. It no longer returns that, but it does return the Russian flag.
Ah yet another "nudge" type behavioral psychology intervention. I'd say these technology companies should be strictly regulated, but they're doing Uncle Sam's propaganda so I doubt that alone would help.
It would be nice certain companies could be chartered by the U.N. I think it would be much more difficult for them to do evil stuff if the majority of states had to agree on their charter. Not that there isn't a subset of things that all states want that sucks ass, but it's much less.
Researcher behind this project here! What I find really interesting here is how of these phrases are something that no one would type by accident. For instance, "Baghdad by the bay" or "iMessage isn't working". And the suppression extends beyond autocomplete/autocorrect to swipe typing. That's why I don't buy Apple's comment that this is just about avoiding inappropriate suggestions.
Some blocked phrases are quite arbitrary: Australia, India, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, and the US are the only countries you can't say are bad or poor. Trayvon Martin is the only full name you can't write. You can call Putin, Biden, or Xi a dictator, but not Trump. In other languages, the suppression can be even worse.
And some are ridiculously overbroad: "is important" and "black woman" are blocked! When I try to swipe them, I get "is impotent" and "blank woman".
I think it's not totally unreasonable for a list like this to exist, at least for autocomplete, but it ought to be transparent so people can see the impact Apple's choices are having on our use of language. Individually it's a small nudge, but on the scale of billions of iPhones it can shape the discourse.
If I want mainstream, my two other choices are Google and Samsung, and they are both even worse than Apple when it comes to "strangers poking around in your brain".
Should I give up on mainstream smartphones? Should I give up on smartphones entirely?
they made a big point at their wwdc keynote a few years ago that they would no longer be autocorrecting the f-word to duck. i had assumed that meant a list like this existed and was being removed, but apparently it referred specifically to that word.
To the shocking number of people here who are justifying this or explaining how it only affect swipe input as if that makes it better: soft coercion is still coercion. If I made a physical keyboard that stops keys from working when you're about to finish typing something I don't want you to type, but you can still circumvent it, I still made a censorship keyboard. It's a sign of the times with how used tech companies are to 'softly' moderating societal trends by unilaterally tweaking the software that everyone uses.
Producing "trump is …" when a user wants that is one thing. Producing that when the user wants something else could be construed as coming from the software itself, and we all know that people looking for a shitstorm will seize the opportunity.
So probabilistic software like a swipe interpreter will often be written to avoid some guesses, to lessen the chance of a shitstorm. Users who want that output have to use a dependable input method instead of one based on probabilities and guesswork.
IMO this avoidance isn't among the ten worst consequences of shitstorms.
This would probably be a bad customer experience for many people, even if Apple could prove these are simply the most common n-gram completions.
And if they altered their training data to avoid completions that are politically unpalatable, IMO that's actually much much worse than a grey list.
I'm a big free speech guy but this one is genuinely a bit complex.
Or we could just type the whole sentence we need.
Or imagine if it auto-completed "the Holocaust is" with "a myth created by the ZOG"! I don't like these "imagine if X was Y" arguments because X isn't Y. Refusing to auto-complete "the occupied territories" (X) is really not the same thing as refusing to auto-complete antisemitism or group-based hate speech (Y). Argue whether X is right or wrong without changing the subject.
Tech-illiterate online mobs enraged by Apple “making a statement” will not stick around long enough to hear them argue about n-grams or whatever.
“Male chauvinist pig” is something many would be very upset to send to their boss by accident. So it’s perhaps understandable some such phrases are not excluded from the guesswork.
We might not talk about a "narrow contingency put" or "Maria crating PVC" very often, but an uncensored autocorrect would almost certainly correct those phrases to the far more common "male chauvinist pig" in the rare cases where someone did try to swipe them.
Step 1: a word of 4-6 letters that's somewhat close to "male". Say "name" or "masked". Look at the key positions, you'll see what I mean.
Step 2: a word that's even less close to chauvinist, and that makes sense after the word you intended, but no sense after "male", so the guesser picks "chauvinist", based on its incorrect first guess and your second swipe.
Step 3: ditto.
The regular key-by-key will also do some probabilistic changes. Just less than the swipe interpreter.
There are cases like https://gizmodo.com/a-cellphones-missing-dot-kills-two-peopl... where, in 02008, Ramazan Çalçoban texted his estranged wife in Turkish, "you change the topic every time you run out of arguments", but the lack of the Turkish dotless "i" on his cellphone turned "sıkısınca" into "sikisinca", which looks more like a misspelling of "sikisince". So he ended up texting her, "You change the topic every time they are fucking you."
Long story short, his father-in-law murdered him for thus insulting his daughter's fidelity, following which he murdered the daughter in question, and the father-in-law committed suicide in prison.
So there might be certain words and phrases that it's best for your computers to not send to other people on your behalf unless they're really sure you mean them.
- There is a chance, quantified by some metric, where a person is suggested a word that is offensive to them or their culture because a probabilistic model made the wrong decision.
- There is no chance that the above happens.
Apple will choose the latter, time and time again, because they are risk averse and freedom is not particularly high on their values list. We’re talking about the company that doesn’t let you type the Taiwanese flag in China, or the pride flag in Russia. It’s no surprise you’re not allowed to swipe “fuck” in the United States. I used to work at Apple.
The ultimate problem being some subset of consumers want autocomplete and some subset will retain the right to be offended and some subset will be both of those?
EDIT: And at what point does accidently sending male chauvinist pig to your boss because of autocomplete absolve you of the responsibility of reading the message before you send it?
Is there any reason apple can't give us the choice of.
a) No autocomplete.
b) Autocomplete with greylist.
c) Autocomplete without greylist.
For anyone wondering the degree to which this is an exaggeration: The iPhone will physically work against you by invisibly changing the size of keys on the keyboard.
Every iPhone, since the very first, dynamically resizes the hitboxes of the iOS keyboard. This is invisible, can not be disabled, and the hitboxes overlap those of other keys.
They used to advertise this as "dynamic tap zones" but they removed the video for it, but you can see their advertising for it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPmVKyhyl9U
Most likely from user testing.
The concern with features like these is that the suggestions are considered to be corporate speech that the company is endorsing, and so it can be held liable for any that break relevant laws. Internet companies are generally considered common carriers when they're just passing around stuff other people write, but when they are generating their own content through machine-learning algorithms they are held to be the actual responsible party.
I'm surprised we haven't seen more lawsuits and criminal prosecution against LLMs so far, though it probably helps that the current U.S. president is a combative asshole that prides himself on how much he can offend every group under the sun.
I realize that there are many reasons to be critical of our digital overlords. This is not one of them.
This is in no way comparable to a physical keyboard stopping you from typing something, because what you are typing is entirely deterministic. Most computer software will underline only misspelled words or grammatical errors, not politically charged statements, because it is a literal interpretation of what the user typed.
Swipe typing and auto-complete are different because they are interpreting the user's input. There is no way to ensure the interpretation is correct. For the sake of both the users and the company, you ensure the interpretations are the ones that cause no harm.
Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. Most likely it is implemented in such a way to produce the least amount of outrage.
"When testing autocomplete, we found some cases where it produces undesirable completions. Imagine if someone typed 'nazis are' and the autocomplete suggested 'good'. How fast would that screenshot get around social media with a tweet comparing iPhone to Grok, and turn into a news headline?"
I'm guessing that that's how this started. Then, a few steps later, "we're getting into China, what do we need to do to not get in trouble", "hey, we've got this mechanism, what if we add 'Tibetan independence' to it". (Which is bad, but on the same scale as all the other things businesses do to get into what they see as a large market that they can be blocked from at any time.)
Then, a few steps later, after some seriously questionable decision-making, someone had the bright idea to add "iMessage isn't working" to it. Frankly, that's the one I'm actually most baffled by here, because everything else seems like the natural consequence of a combination of bad-PR-avoidance and geopolitical kowtowing.
Come to think of it, intuitively any attempt to solve this by tuning the LLM would make texters sound subtly like claude- in which case absolutely the blacklist is better.
Keyboard swiping involves some prediction work from the system. It is ultimately making a best guess from the keys your finger has passed through. The only truly “accurate” output would be for the keyboard to spell out the gibberish that arises from showing every key that the finger has swiped over. Anything intelligible is a guess.
Now because it is a guess, some may question the system or its makers, “Why did you guess this, and not that?” It is easy to see how this can make the maker of the system the target of a politically motivated group. For example, there is a difference between typing out “Dictator Trump” and my keyboard refusing to spell it out - a clear sign of censorship. However, when swiped, because of the guessing nature of the technology, I can understand that the maker of the system (Apple in this case) would not want to be seen endorsing these views. Hence, they do not offer up these politically charged phrases. We are free to type them out, because it is easy to point out that the intent is entirely from the user. However, it is harder to argue for this from the swiping keys gesture.
In my view, this is a more reasonable explanation.
I fully reject that this makes the situation any better or more justifiable. The job of the software that picks what you have likely just said, swiped or tapped should only concern the given word. If the algorithm decides with 95% certainty that the input was "dictator", that's what it should output. If context is used to better select the candidate word, it should only be done for the purpose of slightly re-weighting the possible options with one transparent algorithm, not for checks against a blacklist.
The reason why I think this is that your line of thinking is unbounded, and there is nothing stopping the next logical move - if Apple can decide 'not to endorse' (representation isn't endorsement, but whatever) views by blacklisting its algorithms from forming certain phrases, why can't they uplink entire paragraphs of your text as you're typing it to dynamically analyze them instead of using a dumb filter, and then decide if the entire text is something they want to allow?
That's the whole point: swiping is a very imprecise method, and the user intent is not clear at all, so Apple avoids making "controversial" guesses.
Which is another way of saying identically ambiguous.
Resolving for a safer option when given a choice isn’t censorship in my view. I can, at the end of the day, type out fuck.
Looking at https://helgesver.re/articles/macos-vulgar-word-flags for the list.
I imagined it something like this:
It seems like a way to make it sound more dramatic if you dislike it.
You have door 1 and 2 presented to you by me. You're equally likely to want to pick both options. Door 1 is open. Door 2 is locked, but you can ask me to come over and undo all the locks to open it for you.
Run the test over a large number of people, and then shockingly, it turns out that doing this made more people choose door 1, even though they didn't have a preference beforehand. According to your logic, I did not coerce anyone by designing the choice in this obtuse way because after all you can still choose between the two options. But more people ended up choosing the option I wanted them to pick, weird.
If this coercion didn't work, companies wouldn't be hard at work designing revolutionary new types of dark patterns that make you more likely to accept the cookies, back out of deleting your account or decline enabling an option in the settings they don't want you to use anymore.
Apple should not be in the business of editorializing their users’ writings. The whole deferral to “well you can just manually type it out” raises the obvious question “then why can’t I swipe it out?”
Because then it could look like they're suggesting the word to you, rather than you explicitly selecting it, and they don't want to be accused of suggesting any terms that might be controversial, for the same reason they don't want to be accused of suggesting profanity to their users.
This is how censorship works best, if folks start anticipating and avoiding it so the censors dont even have to exert pressure.
HN is hardly immune from this; it’s no small irony that there will be people doing that very thing right here in these comments.
They have a good argument, too! Why should Apple be able to hide behind the excuse that the data is crowdsourced, therefore they have no responsibility for it? Didn't the social networks try that one already?
Damned if you do and damned if you don't, in this situation.
If Apple doesn't want its autocorrect to suggest statistically likely opinions on divisive topics, then sure, whatever. But when it has a hard blacklist of input it will categorically refuse from the user and editorialize it with nonsensical changes that only serve to avoid the blacklist, that is a very, very bad look.
If the user tried to swipe-type "Tibetan independence" and got one or two letters wrong, there's still probably a 90% or even 99% likelihood that their intent was to type "Tibetan independence." Not suggesting "Tibetan independence" is censorship, it's not benign carefulness.
We're not talking about Apple accidentally turning "Buttermilk pancakes" into "Muslim extremist."
Much hay was made in some circles that Google was saying George W. Bush's White House was a miserable failure. No tech company wants to be the target of that sort of campaign today. Especially not with a petulant thin skinned narcissist in office that already has demanded protection money to ward off tariffs and other retribution available to the Presidency.
See I tapped out all those characters just for you.
There were two buttons, one labeled "Our Web Site", the other labeled "Our Competitor's Web Site".
When you moved the mouse over the "Our Competitor's Web Site" button, it would quickly slide out from under your cursor before you could click it!
Then when you stopped moving your mouse, the "Our Web Site" button would slyly slide right underneath your mouse!
Dammit Microsoft!!! ;)
Unfortunately the broader more important point of censorship is drowned out in noise as designed
Same with how congress names their bills. Wow you’re not voting for the Save The Children from Internet Monsters act? What’s wrong with you?
Oh you mean the bill that grants the government cart blanche to go through anyone’s email without a warrant?
We’re in a tough spot here - there’s just nothing to pattern match to - not cleanly at least
The way a few tech companies can steer trends and conversations is unprecedented. The data collection is unprecedented
Specifically the scale is. People truly don’t understand the scale these companies operate at
No newspaper or wire tapping ever had the reach this stuff has now
I imagine it went the same way that board meetings about any potential PR disaster go. "How bad of a reputational hit will we take if the NYT runs a headline about some kid getting auto suggested something culturally taboo on their iPad? Would it be more than the reputational hit we will take from the people that are annoyed that we won't auto suggest 'Nazi' to complete the phrase 'Trump is a' while they're typing out their tweets? If so, then let's add the list of "do not suggest" to our auto complete system." And that doesn't begin to count the bad press they could get if someone intentionally tries to get the auto complete system to generate something offensive. See also the AI companies getting shit because people were able to get the image generators to generate porn.
Such is the nature of trying to sell your products in a world where most people treat every single thing done by their technology as an intentional act chosen by the developers to specifically target them. If you want to buy someone else's package, you have to live with the fact that they are going to respond to the incentives to avoid headline scandals and government scrutiny much more strongly than to cater to a idealistic free speech model. This is why having a strong social and cultural free speech norm, that extends far beyond the legal letter of the law is so important. You want society as a whole to broadly consider free speech important and worth having over the inconvenience of Tiny Tim learning a new word today.
I don’t want to make a mistake calling someone cunt.
Even more so I DON’T want software type out cunt or fuck on its own to a person I totally don’t want to write fucking swear words.
Typed on an iPhone.
Considering arguably the keyboard itself is one of the most common "touch surfaces" on iOS, the level of neglect and level of overall quality is staggering. There's some serious incentive problems at Apple if nobody is tasked with making one of the best digital keyboards in the world.
PS - Whoever came up with the concept, on swipe-style touch keyboards, of the "Tap Map"/Heatmap wherein keys visible location doesn't match their touch area - so that BY DESIGN it always provides an inconsistent user experience needs to be fired into the sun. You literally cannot disable it on most mobile keyboards. It is on iOS's native keyboard AND Microsoft's Swiftkey.
I used to tell people just type and trust it to work, it was great. Now, even when I type the right thing, the auto-complete will screw it up after the fact. I feel like I need to proofread everything. I wish we could go back to whatever setup they had 19 years ago.
The fact Apple aren't embarrassed by the iOS keyboard is very surprising and disappointing.
Apple is free to make their product work however they want. They're not creating laws or public utilities.
That's different than youtube demonetizing or suspending you because you said some word in a video.
Apple, evidently, does not want you to say these things. They can’t outright ban phrases due to optics, so they do this instead.
- Sent from my iPhone.
Swipe "Ireland" alone, works. "United" alone, works.
Same swipes but back to back, and now it's suddenly "United Iceland".
There's no predictive text involved here, this starts going into the willful territory.
You didn't "swipe Ireland", you're swiping something like IUYTRERGHJKLKJHGFDSASDCVBNHGFD" and it's predicting "Ireland".
I tried typing "propaganda" ten times with 100% accuracy. When it's preceded with "[left] wing", the accuracy drops to 0%.
Picked at random: "right wing propaganda" isn't severe enough a phrase that I instinctively know I'm hitting a swear filter. After swiping the last word iOS goes back and changes the second word to "Wong". In order to understand what was happening and then fix it, I had to backspace (deleting the whole phrase), re-swipe both words, backspace, re-swipe both words again, double tap the incorrect word, backspace, type the word, tap to return to the end of the sentence, and hit space. All to fix one letter.
If this was really about protecting people from accidentally typing these that might land them in hot water, why wouldn't iOS at least offer the word it knew I wanted in the suggestion bar?
Alright, well some of us are actually deft at swiping text on our phones and would very much like the keyboard to type the word we entered.
The models know which words we intend to type. The problem is those specific words are on unchangeable and hidden block lists.
Yea it's not the best option in all situations but fixing voice dictation glitches is way less tapping over the long haul; fingers no go numb using it as much as possible by saving the tap tap tap for absolutely necessary moments
for now :)
... Actually I'm not sure if they let you do those.
My Apple Watch has a setting for how long the display stays on before sleep. It’s a dropdown with two choices: 15 seconds or 70 seconds. Would you prefer 30 seconds? Why not 60 seconds instead of 70 you say? Fuck you, you don’t know better than Apple designers. Take it or leave it, best we can do is 15 seconds.
I'd have tried to work out more detailed behavior but I'm poor enough at swiping (at least with Gboard) that there's little point in trying to pin it down that well, at least for me.
A distant relative married into a family outside of our normal circle. When he brought along a someone from that side to a Thanksgiving family dinner, her language was loaded with the well known bombs where, at one point, someone brought her into another room for a talking to.
As it should be done.
This seems like a feature, because I swipe all the time and send messages without realizing I got a word wrong, especially because the word it chooses is usually with the same first letter and approximately same length.
All this is doing is avoiding high-risk words and terms, and making you type them out letter by letter to ensure you aren't sending an accidentally sexual/swear/political message to your Mom/boss/colleague.
This would be problematic and censorship if it were preventing you from typing the phrases at all. It's clearly a helpful feature, however, to prevent you from accidentally typing risky phrases when using something as error-prone as swipe typing.
https://swipeblocked.com/
Or the list itself:
https://swipeblocked.com/list
I'm leaving the above 'typo' in as an example of it. I initially typed "people I", and it showed up as "people I" at first, but after typing more it subtly and retroactively changed it to "people's". That's not something that should happen in general. It doesn't make sense grammatically or contextually, and S isn't anywhere near I on the keyboard.
That's not counting at least one other instance in this not-so-long comment where it did the same with "should" -> "show", but I fixed that one. I'm baffled no one at Apple seemed to notice and/or care that they actively made the keyboard worse.
I suppose it must be region bound, with different phrases per region?
on edit: when I said illegal I of course mean liable for fines or open to civil suits.
Well I just swyped it into this comment, and double checked in iMessage, although hilariously, it types “isn’t” correctly, but then when I type “real” it “corrects” it by removing the apostrophe.
and all I wanted to do was make a bad joke about how I’m thankful Apple won’t let me ruin my five-year-old’s dreams by sending her an accidental soul crushing text.
On a real note, though, if they could just find a way to fix the issue where every time I type an “i” to say “I“ it instead types an “o” all by itself like I’m some kind of 17th century bard, and then anytime I want to type “a“ as an indefinite article, it will type a single “s” by itself, which almost never makes any grammatical sense in the English language unless you’re talking about the letter “s” itself.
I suppose ditching Apple is "two birds with one stone" :)
The others are blatant censorship.
It will be interesting as corporate predictive text generators take over the world and companies like Apple will literally build the Jobsian reality distortion field into their products to portray their services as working better than they are.
I could understand if they just wanted to make sure no accidental swipes resulted in shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, or tits. That is defensible (though I'd want a toggle to turn it off and accept the risk). But they go so much farther, into phrases that some genius there decided I should be offended to type. That's too much.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/google-autocomplete-vile-suggest...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot)
Which the iPhone conveniently also does [1].
The problem is, media loves something to feed outrage, and Evangelical pressure groups love to raise a stink over bullshit any journalist with an ounce of self respect would discard.
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2025/07/02/facetime-in-ios-26-will-freez...
It’s mostly automated, controversial phrases or topics are detected by analyzing various data sources and getting sentiment analysis from interactions that people have in response. Anything that causes overwhelming polarization or negative reactions or meets other criteria gets blocked. There is no agenda.
This is an _insane_ lever for censorship. Does Israel pay them to omit “the occupied territories”? Is that internal Apple policy irrespective of nation state pressure?
It's not just madness that these exist, but that they are hidden, unexposed to the user, and have no justification or rationale.
I wonder where that summary came from?
Otherwise there would not be things like "List of unsolved murders (2000–present)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_murders_(2000...
I'm flagging that this doesn't sound like a good faith discussion. The green account raises my priors.
Note that I'm not suggesting that Apple's policy on censorship is good, quite the contrary.
That is a general answer to your question. It is not a specific defense of the particular word list in question. But I can say I've been surprised a few times about what I accidentally swiped on Android. Bitch isn't swipable but I have "bitchiest" readily available, for instance.
This is just the type of thing that makes everyone hate modern technology.
How adult of you to die on this hill of all hills.
As global COL rises due to Americans hands off political approach the world watches as yall bitch about iPhone keyboards.
That is why people hate modern technology; the people in the industry are out of touch coddled first worlders lacking perspective.
Inaccurate. According to swipeblocked.com it is blocked with both swiping and autocomplete.
Swipeblocked: The phrases your iPhone won't suggest
https://swipeblocked.com/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50394070
Apple's predictive text restrictions include 'Dictator Trump' and 'Sleepy Joe'
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50391486
I dumped Apple's word list
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50357782
"Glitch" more like "Easter egg" I suspect.
There was an emoji search/copy-paste web site that I use when I need to find an emoji. Once upon a time, when you typed "Trump" into the search, one of the results was the poop emoji. It no longer returns that, but it does return the Russian flag.
It would be nice certain companies could be chartered by the U.N. I think it would be much more difficult for them to do evil stuff if the majority of states had to agree on their charter. Not that there isn't a subset of things that all states want that sucks ass, but it's much less.
Some blocked phrases are quite arbitrary: Australia, India, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, and the US are the only countries you can't say are bad or poor. Trayvon Martin is the only full name you can't write. You can call Putin, Biden, or Xi a dictator, but not Trump. In other languages, the suppression can be even worse.
And some are ridiculously overbroad: "is important" and "black woman" are blocked! When I try to swipe them, I get "is impotent" and "blank woman".
I think it's not totally unreasonable for a list like this to exist, at least for autocomplete, but it ought to be transparent so people can see the impact Apple's choices are having on our use of language. Individually it's a small nudge, but on the scale of billions of iPhones it can shape the discourse.
https://swipeblocked.com
For every trick you catch them at there are a thousand you didn't
If I want mainstream, my two other choices are Google and Samsung, and they are both even worse than Apple when it comes to "strangers poking around in your brain".
Should I give up on mainstream smartphones? Should I give up on smartphones entirely?
Or yeah, just don't use a smartphone. I still don't.