- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
Apple removes app created by Andrew Tate::Legal firm had said Real World Portal encouraged misogyny and there was evidence to suggest it is an illegal pyramid scheme
I mean, sure, I will almost always die on this hill - but for something that supports harming women (or people in general), and/or is part of a pyramid scheme? Naw dawg ima dip out for a second and go get some smokes (and also never come back).
Now, if it was like an app that was supporting human rights or something that is being removed, sure, it’s bad to have an entity control what you see/hear/interact with. And there may be gray areas between those two examples. But suppressing a human(s) just because the developer has a tiny pp and needs to overcompensate to the max? And try to gain traction and supporters to do the same? Uhh, no fucking way.
Removed by mod
This app didn’t get taken down because it was by a “controversial” guy. It got taken down because content in the app encouraged violence and because the app itself was a pyramid scheme (People had to pay $50/month just to use the app, with promises of rewards if they got more people to join).
Google removed the app from their store, too. Yes, you can still probably install it from their website or a third party app store on Android, and yes, it would be great if third party app stores and sideloading existed for iOS (and they kinda do, though they’re very limited) but even if they did exist it would be reasonable to expect every single one of them to refuse to host this app (especially if “hosting” entails accepting payments).
Tate can still host this via the web. He can even build a progressive web app for it. I suspect he’ll run into issues collecting that $50 monthly payment any way other than by crypto, though, since I suspect most payment processors will refuse to work with him.
Removed by mod
Were you a user of this app? Why do you say it’s not a scam?
Removed by mod
Tankies, lefties, and cancel culture, got it.
Do you also doubt a famous guy on the internet would traffic women and then charge people a fee to learn how to traffic women? Because that’s what Andrew Tate did.
If the issue were his name, then it wouldn’t have made it on the App Store in the first place.
Apple also removes social media apps that don’t meet their standards for moderation, so that’s already a thing. For example:
Note that Apple didn’t remove “Truth Social” (though Google did) so this isn’t a political issue (it may be for Google, but I doubt it).
Check out Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines. Personally, I approve of Apple protecting its users from scams and other dangerous content. There are a ton of things I’d love for them to be more open about allowing, but I’m fine with them banning apps like this one.
Is your issue that you don’t like Apple’s requirements? If so, this app is an excellent point in their favor in most people’s eyes.
Is your issue that you think Apple’s requirements are discriminatory in some way? If so, an app by a cis het white misogynist is probably not a great example of that.
Do you think their standards were applied unfairly? If so, I find it hard to believe that you even read their guidelines.
Honestly, I get the impression that you’re just a Tate fanboy and that you’re mad that Apple pulled his app.
I’m guessing you haven’t visited the website, because it screams “Scam!”
Apple users can install PWAs.
Removed by mod
All words are made up.
How did you manage to read any words before those?
Ahh, so you’re a complete fucking moron then. Checks out since you’re defending Andrew “I moved to Romania so I wouldn’t be charged with rape” Tate.
I stopped reading because your entire comment is composed of made up words.
Go fanboy somewhere else.
The term “scam” is a straw man. “Scam” is subjective, so you could define a scam as “an app that provides no content and steals your money” and conclude that the app in question is not that, and therefore fine.
The main assertion in the article is:
Removed by mod
Sorry I don’t really understand your position.
You’re rejecting the quotes from the article on the basis of the publication, suggesting a better accusation would be a “scam”, and then refuting that accusation as baseless.
I’m not trying to be an ass, I mean this as kindly as possible, but this is a straw man argument. You should look into logical fallacies. They’re well documented tactics for manipulating people and misrepresenting information. Everyone should. It will help you to reason about information and ultimately identify when you’re being manipulated.
Removed by mod
I’m confident that the amount of things you cannot imagine is quite substantial; certainly far more than that of an average person.
I feel like your negative opinion of censorship is so strong that it overpowers your morality. Would you let a serial killer walk around shouting that we should kill everyone just for the sake of preventing censorship, or would you insist they’re locked up? See, even you have your limit.
Its a less extreme example, but the same logic applies here. We shouldn’t just let misogyny grow for the sake of ‘freedom’. That’s how you end up with stuff like the Nazis. Classic bystander mentality.
Removed by mod
What about an app whose intention is to make it easier to kill as specific subset of people?
Removed by mod
It’s a hypothetical
Removed by mod
It’s telling how you will avoid any thought exercise
Just like you.
Looks like we found the libertarian. Are you really willing to let others die or be abused for the sake of ‘freedom’? Here’s the thing; we can prevent civil freedoms from being infringed upon by increasing regulation. Yes, people are the root of all evil, but that doesn’t mean we can’t manage the spread of evil by regulating the tools that make it easier for it to grow. You’re really just proving my point here. The bystander is almost just as bad as being the one doing wrong.
It’s not censorship. Censorship is something demanded of by a government. As a business owner if you use the assets of my business I am passively participating and enabling you to spread your message. If I find out what you do is horrible I have the right to retract any level of my participation from your endeavor. You are still allowed to say whatever you want but I am NOT compelled to help you even passively.
We have protected classes to stop people from uaing this right to exile vulnerable groups from being able to use all servicea in society this way as a counter measure to this right but if the form of removal is not based automatically out of what body you are walking around in or what your religious beliefs are and the ban doesn’t apply unilaterally to all members of your group for that sole reason - then it is valid.