Hacker News

points by briandw 7 hours ago | 0 comments

There is no winning here. It's impossible to make autocomplete inoffensive. In fact making it inoffensive, is offensive. theguardian.com would make Apple the bad guy no matter the policy choice.

[–] armchairhacker 7 minutes ago

They could make it a simple algorithm and publish it. Then if someone accuses Apple of being biased towards their word, they just get directed to the algorithm.

Of course, people will still accuse Apple of being biased. But they’ll be wrong, and never manage to prove it (unlike this guy), which I think matters.

[–] hnlmorg 6 hours ago

There is a way to win here: make it an opt out

- [ ] Disable autocomplete swear filter.

But finely grained options are not Apple’s way.

[–] Retric 2 hours ago

iOS has been steadily offering more options over time. And yes taken individually customization seems like the correct choice basically every time but eventually you end up with a mess.

Consider the logic for tap’s could offer hundreds of customizations. That’s core functionality and I’m sure someone internally is thinking deeply about many of them. But if you offer zero customization most people just get used to how things operate so skipping that functionality isn’t terrible for the average user. Instead they offer options for people with disabilities which is a distinct group who can’t just adapt and thus a meaningful justification.

[–] sam1714 6 hours ago

You'd end up with pages of options, especially once people realize they can get on the bandwagon.

Disable swears, alcohol, smoking, marijuana, gambling, child abuse and neglect, sensitive East Asian politics, sensitive Middle Eastern politics, WWII politics, Late Ottoman genocides, LGB issues, T issues, global warming, nuclear power, HOA issues, vegetarian issues, vegan issues...

[–] buran77 6 hours ago

I don't blame Apple for trying to straddle the line that makes everyone equally unhappy. But I steer away from autocorrect entirely so I'm not irritated daily by this like others may be.

Talking about autocorrect and irritation, I remember a situation where someone caused a minor international incident by writing that something "caused a lot of irritation". The word they were aiming for before autocorrect chimed in was "iterations" (on a document). I'd rather make my own mistakes than constantly have to fight an autocorrect system.

[–] cite_please 7 hours ago

That’s ok. I’ve already made theguardian.com the bad guy a long time ago so the two cancel out.