Legal firm had said Real World Portal encouraged misogyny and there was evidence to suggest it is an illegal pyramid scheme
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 disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
While I truly believe the dude and his app are bad, Apple shouldn’t be able to both arbitrarily remove whatever apps they want from the store, but disallow loading apps from places other than the store.
It is arbitrary. There is no court. There is no jury. There is no impartial third party to appeal to. Their terms of service are so vague that they could give any bs reason to take down anything they want. And they have done this to take down perfectly reasonable apps that are just critical of apple in the past.
Yeah. That’s private enterprise. Of course there is no judge or jury. It is arbitrary because it’s business and business is built on people’s feelings.
As for apple, how is anybody supposed to install the app if apple refuses to publish it? Unlike Google, they made their app store the gatekeeper as the only way to install apps for end users.
A business is not a government and people need to start recognizing the boundaries of what you are actually entitled to as a basic versus what is extra.
If you walked into my printshop and used MY photocopier to routinely print Nazi fliers and this is something that I become aware of I should have the right to veto what use my photocopier is being put to. They are free to say what they want but I do not need to provide them service to assist them in it. They do not have the right to my compliance or my passive participation through use of my business to spread their garbage.
Companies can say no. Freedom of speech protects you from the government it doesn’t entitle you to use of a privately owned platform to serve as your personal megaphone.
Your printshop isn’t a de-facto public town square. Apple, Google, Twitter, and other large companies have inserted themselves into that position.
People like you that just go “government vs private business” miss the entire context, history, and nuance because why that distinction even ever mattered in the past and how it came to be.
In the past, almost every business was closer in practice to being an individual. Your local print shop. Your local hardware store, etc. And for businesses like that, I agree with you 100% , they should get the right to do what they want.
However, private mega-corporations nowadays have more power than most governments at the time the Constitution was signed. When a company has the power to decide what more than half the country can put on their own phone, that’s national level power, companies can seriously oppreess people, discriminate, etc, at this scale. Sure, this is a case of stopping a bad person, but there have also been cases of apple censoring apps critical of apple or other awful governmental atrocities in other countries. I’d rather apple not be able to censor anything, than be able to censor things like that.
And your last paragraph is flat out wrong. Freedom of Speech is a concept, that means you are free to say what you want. You might be thinking of the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which is just one thing the US government promises to do.
The thing is that that concept of business having different responsibilities that scale with size isn’t a thing. It doesn’t matter if they are a print shop or own half the god damn world they operate on the same principles. That is what make these giant conglomerates scary and why anti trust options and breaking businesses into more smaller options is a good idea. But applying your ideas of government to a business is stupid. If you want a town square get the town to build a square where those rights are protected - don’t go down to the Mall owned by a management group and then crow freedom of speech when they throw you out for yelling obnoxious shit in the food court.
Freedom of Speech is a concept - but there are two distinct ones. The actual legal protection and this fictional cootie shot bullshit of “I should be able to say whatever I want and no private citzen or group of private citizens should be able to challenge me in any way”. Honestly the second part is just entitlement half the time because last I checked those who usually advocate for the latter are usually the most willing to remove the former from entire groups of people. Personal consequences and social accountability should be and are part of that freedom. There are countries all over the world that have the freedom of speech enshrined in law but every single one places limitations of some sort of how it is protected and exercised . The US for instance has obscenity law, protected classes for whom services cannot be denied and people have the right to sue for defamation or libel. What counts as a legitimate protest (or exercise of free speech) and what gets the unruly unlawful mob treatment is also governed by a web of concepts and law. Free Speech is not an access card that removes all barriers, it’s a protection from your government and if you want your government to properly protect you from it you need to increase the space, services and property the government runs on where those rules are protected. You privatize a library you lose a lot of protections immediately because a federal or state institution has to play ball and businesses are closer to autocratic rule.
Freedom of Speech is nebulous and nuanced but in all cases, every single country that protects expression, the responsibility, rights and restrictions given to businesses work on private citizen rules and the right for a private entity to refuse or withdraw participation is just as enshrined.
Ignore the downvotes. I’m glad somebody still believes in freedom, and not just the crazy ones (i.e. fuck Andrew Tate, but fuck censorship too). People have died for us to enjoy this right that others want to throw down the drain.
The firm has also claimed that there is evidence to suggest that the app is an illegal pyramid scheme, with members being charged $49.99 a month to join.
I am criticizing the closed garden iOS ecosystem. This has nothing to do with Andrew Tate except the fact his app was censored for being “contraversal”.
How is censorship good news? Yeah this is all about Andrew Tate, but that is not the point. The point is that censorship is bad and censorship can occur on centralized app stores were it is done for “politicial” reasons.
I don’t care if you think Andrew Tate is evil, it is the action of banning an app because “we do not like you”. That is the problem and Apple users have no choice since they are in a walled garden.
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.
I mean, sure, I will almost always die on this hill - but for something that [Insert excuse here]
Now, if it was like an app that [Insert app that I like], sure.
Really bro? Lets say you liked Jimmy. Jimmy was a contraversal guy and Jimmy had the Jimmy app on the App Store. Then Apple took down the Jimmy app since they do not like Jimmy, Jimmy is too contraversal, Jimmy triggers too many people online.
You either die on this hill of being against censorship or you don’t.
You do not have to like or support Andrew Tate to be against his app being taken off the App Store.
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.
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.
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.
I love going onto the profiles of people that make dumbass comments like this because it’s never a 1 off dumb comment that got downvotes, it’s always that their profile is filled with either lazy troll comments or just stupid bullshit.
And this guy is certainly no exception, my favourite is him denying climate change and trying to claim that its all just a communist conspiracy.
Honestly, I don’t care if he’s a climate denier or full on conspiracy theorist about everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day right? So when they say something right, I acknowledge it (and even people like you that, based on their profile are usually a bit less crazy, occasionally say crazy things as above).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
While I truly believe the dude and his app are bad, Apple shouldn’t be able to both arbitrarily remove whatever apps they want from the store, but disallow loading apps from places other than the store.
This is so dumb. It’s not arbitrary. It’s in their TOS. Apple doesn’t want the negative brand associations with him.
It is arbitrary. There is no court. There is no jury. There is no impartial third party to appeal to. Their terms of service are so vague that they could give any bs reason to take down anything they want. And they have done this to take down perfectly reasonable apps that are just critical of apple in the past.
Yeah. That’s private enterprise. Of course there is no judge or jury. It is arbitrary because it’s business and business is built on people’s feelings.
But when one businesses whims can harm the right of millions, it’s time to regulate them so the CEOs feelings don’t fuck users over.
he has the right to have his app. apple and google have the right to not publish it.
As for Google, I agree.
As for apple, how is anybody supposed to install the app if apple refuses to publish it? Unlike Google, they made their app store the gatekeeper as the only way to install apps for end users.
A business is not a government and people need to start recognizing the boundaries of what you are actually entitled to as a basic versus what is extra.
If you walked into my printshop and used MY photocopier to routinely print Nazi fliers and this is something that I become aware of I should have the right to veto what use my photocopier is being put to. They are free to say what they want but I do not need to provide them service to assist them in it. They do not have the right to my compliance or my passive participation through use of my business to spread their garbage.
Companies can say no. Freedom of speech protects you from the government it doesn’t entitle you to use of a privately owned platform to serve as your personal megaphone.
Your printshop isn’t a de-facto public town square. Apple, Google, Twitter, and other large companies have inserted themselves into that position.
People like you that just go “government vs private business” miss the entire context, history, and nuance because why that distinction even ever mattered in the past and how it came to be.
In the past, almost every business was closer in practice to being an individual. Your local print shop. Your local hardware store, etc. And for businesses like that, I agree with you 100% , they should get the right to do what they want.
However, private mega-corporations nowadays have more power than most governments at the time the Constitution was signed. When a company has the power to decide what more than half the country can put on their own phone, that’s national level power, companies can seriously oppreess people, discriminate, etc, at this scale. Sure, this is a case of stopping a bad person, but there have also been cases of apple censoring apps critical of apple or other awful governmental atrocities in other countries. I’d rather apple not be able to censor anything, than be able to censor things like that.
And your last paragraph is flat out wrong. Freedom of Speech is a concept, that means you are free to say what you want. You might be thinking of the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which is just one thing the US government promises to do.
The thing is that that concept of business having different responsibilities that scale with size isn’t a thing. It doesn’t matter if they are a print shop or own half the god damn world they operate on the same principles. That is what make these giant conglomerates scary and why anti trust options and breaking businesses into more smaller options is a good idea. But applying your ideas of government to a business is stupid. If you want a town square get the town to build a square where those rights are protected - don’t go down to the Mall owned by a management group and then crow freedom of speech when they throw you out for yelling obnoxious shit in the food court.
Freedom of Speech is a concept - but there are two distinct ones. The actual legal protection and this fictional cootie shot bullshit of “I should be able to say whatever I want and no private citzen or group of private citizens should be able to challenge me in any way”. Honestly the second part is just entitlement half the time because last I checked those who usually advocate for the latter are usually the most willing to remove the former from entire groups of people. Personal consequences and social accountability should be and are part of that freedom. There are countries all over the world that have the freedom of speech enshrined in law but every single one places limitations of some sort of how it is protected and exercised . The US for instance has obscenity law, protected classes for whom services cannot be denied and people have the right to sue for defamation or libel. What counts as a legitimate protest (or exercise of free speech) and what gets the unruly unlawful mob treatment is also governed by a web of concepts and law. Free Speech is not an access card that removes all barriers, it’s a protection from your government and if you want your government to properly protect you from it you need to increase the space, services and property the government runs on where those rules are protected. You privatize a library you lose a lot of protections immediately because a federal or state institution has to play ball and businesses are closer to autocratic rule.
Freedom of Speech is nebulous and nuanced but in all cases, every single country that protects expression, the responsibility, rights and restrictions given to businesses work on private citizen rules and the right for a private entity to refuse or withdraw participation is just as enshrined.
Ignore the downvotes. I’m glad somebody still believes in freedom, and not just the crazy ones (i.e. fuck Andrew Tate, but fuck censorship too). People have died for us to enjoy this right that others want to throw down the drain.
Fuck that shitstain, I hope people demand refunds and he’s forced to pay.
“Created”
Let’s all agree to call him “Andrew Hate” and maybe this shitshow can finish earlier than later.
I wish this was explained a little more.
deleted by creator
Very simple, really. An app that charged less than $49.99/mo would be poor-guy shit.
The reason why you should not have an iPhone. It is a walled garden and Apple is the ministry of truth in this walled garden.
removed by mod
I am criticizing the closed garden iOS ecosystem. This has nothing to do with Andrew Tate except the fact his app was censored for being “contraversal”.
removed by mod
Dunno… this feels like the first genuinely good news I’ve heard apple linked with in a long while.
How is censorship good news? Yeah this is all about Andrew Tate, but that is not the point. The point is that censorship is bad and censorship can occur on centralized app stores were it is done for “politicial” reasons.
I don’t care if you think Andrew Tate is evil, it is the action of banning an app because “we do not like you”. That is the problem and Apple users have no choice since they are in a walled garden.
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.
Really bro? Lets say you liked Jimmy. Jimmy was a contraversal guy and Jimmy had the Jimmy app on the App Store. Then Apple took down the Jimmy app since they do not like Jimmy, Jimmy is too contraversal, Jimmy triggers too many people online.
You either die on this hill of being against censorship or you don’t.
You do not have to like or support Andrew Tate to be against his app being taken off the App Store.
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.
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.
An app won’t kill anyone on its own. Just like how guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
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.
While I would never need anything with Andrew Tate’s name on it, I absolutely agree with the statement and that’s why I stick with android. Upvoted.
I love going onto the profiles of people that make dumbass comments like this because it’s never a 1 off dumb comment that got downvotes, it’s always that their profile is filled with either lazy troll comments or just stupid bullshit.
And this guy is certainly no exception, my favourite is him denying climate change and trying to claim that its all just a communist conspiracy.
Or stuff like:
oh wait, that was you…
Honestly, I don’t care if he’s a climate denier or full on conspiracy theorist about everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day right? So when they say something right, I acknowledge it (and even people like you that, based on their profile are usually a bit less crazy, occasionally say crazy things as above).
How far back in my comment history did you have to go to find that one lol
Free heating for the masses?
removed by mod