Apple removes app created by Andrew Tate
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
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
You're viewing a single thread.
"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.
The "right to say it" is protection against Government persecution.
No one has a right to a platform.
In the USA (yes, there are other countries where Apple operates but anyways...) the 1st amendment, unfortunately, doesn't protect speech on social media, only from government persecution. We cannot read the minds of the framer of the constitution, but I firmly believe they are now rolling in their graves, as they couldn't have foreseen the internet and social media, and so didn't account for those.
Exactly because the 1st amendment is effectively neutered, freedom of speech in America is in grave danger and we shouldn't rejoice about it.
So you think that because Apple isn't forced by the Government to give a platform to an accused rapist America is "in grave danger". We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Can you be more specific? Which countries do you expect will force Apple to restore the app of an accused rapist? We can test your hypothesis.
I expect that once he's convicted, not just accused, they should not only be allowed, but required to ban him ("innocent until proven guilty").
And yes, I believe once your platform get big enough to be effectively considered a public square, it should be protected by the 1st amendment.
I don't know if there are other countries where this is true (maybe some European country? not sure) I'm just saying in this thread I'm speaking only for the USA.
"innocent until proven guilty" is a Government thing.
A corporation is treated like a group of people, they're not a Government. Governments are infinitely more powerful than any corporation.
If you don't like Apple... don't do business with them. As we've seen with countless internet companies (including Twitter)... it can be done
I'm surprised your point on freedom of speech in other countries is hypothetical as you expressed the US version is so flawed as to be a "grave danger"
"innocent until proven guilty" is a Government thing. [...] A corporation is treated like a group of people, they're not a Government.
You're right and I'm not denying this. I'm just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.
I'm surprised your point on freedom of speech in other countries is hypothetical as you expressed the US version is so flawed as to be a "grave danger"
My point was simply "I speak for America as I'm not sure about other countries", but, I went googling around and it seems other countries (I looked mostly at Europe) are not much better, so I have to conclude freedom of speech is in grave danger pretty much everywhere in the world.
The US (or European) version isn't flawed, it's behind the times, as internet, mobile phones and social media didn't exist when it was written.
Let's say you have a cafe with an open mic night. One day, a guy comes up to the stage and starts yelling Nazi rhetoric and racist slogans. You can be a free speech absolutist like yourself and let the guy stay on stage, or you can keep your customers and kick the fucker out. The only difference between this and Apple is scale.
The only difference between this and Apple is scale.
Bingo, that makes all the difference, and that there are a lot more than two open mic cafes to choose from.
Cafés can rightfully kick those guys out, but when you're as big and power as Apple, the law should (but doesn't as of yet) curtail that power a bit, as it lends itself for immense abuse.
Okay. What if it's the only cafe with an open mic night in town? It's not a big city. Should they allow the Nazi? Otherwise, it lends itself for abuse, right?
They can go the the next city over, or move, or heck, open their own cafe where all their nazi friends can hangout and not bother us. But, you cannot just open your 3rd party app store for iOS devices, or create your own OS for all your friends to use (well, you can, but ... you'd probably agree even opening your own cafe is much easier than taking on one of the largest corporations in America).
If that cafe (or chain) had a near monopoly on open mics, and somehow prevented others from having open mic nights, then yes, I'd say they should allow any protected free speech, but I should say they shouldn't be allow to get to that point.
I’m just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.
Instead of treating huge corporations that actively suppress competition like they're a de facto form of government, we should instead... prevent them from getting to the point where their size and market share grants them power over the lives of citizens comparable to that of the government.
Fully agree, and that's exactly what I'm arguing for here.
But the app itself has already been deemed inappropriate and harmful to the consumer, on its own merits and not related to Tate himself. Equating this to removal of free speech is a false equivalency, that right is not being infringed on and is the wrong argument to be having. Tate has plenty more platforms to freely spew his misogynistic BS.
But he is already guilty of hate speech. That's why he was banned on multiple platforms like YouTube and TikTok. On that issue alone Apple can cancel their contract with him.
He isn't just accused, he is ultra accused:
[...] alleging that Andrew Tate [...]
Did you read the article? Do you know what "alleged" means? There is a trial, let's wait till the verdict is out
Edit: to be clear, I hope he gets convicted, but let justice do its course.
Edit2: If the app was deemed dangerous, the judge in the trial should rule to ban the app waiting for the verdict, not Apple.
No, protection from government persecution is just what the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution provides.
The general concept of freedom of speech is larger than that, and there is nothing about a large powerful corporation that should mean they are allowed to fuck you over for what you say
You seem to have no idea what you're talking about.
The 1st amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech (among other things).
Okay, aside from 1 ascii character being off, have any meaningful response to what I meant with my comment?
If you don't like how Apple manages their business, your remedy is to not do business with Apple.
If Apple determines some app has broken their terms of service, they remove it.
If you don't like Apple's terms of service, see point 1.
See, it's that easy.
- It's not as simple as "not doing business with apple". There are serious social ramifications to not having an iPhone in the US.
- Even if I choose to do business with them, I should still have Rights as a customer.
It's not easy
I have android, I don't feel many "social ramifications" thankfully. Android is a bit more free, but it's still ran by a large corporation that can change the rules at will, so there is no truly free (as in "freedom") option. So, maybe it's a duopoly instead of a monopoly, not much better really.
(ok ok, there are some fringe minor alternatives, but not really ready for prime time).
I have had girls halfway through giving me their number, stop because they realize it's not an iPhone. I have friends I hang out with multiple times a week for almost a decade that don't add me to the friends group chat because it's 15 iOS users and most don't want to deal with non iMessage messaging. Are you seriously telling me you've never been in a single groupchat where people say things like "Wait who doesn't have an iPhone in here"? Because I've been in dozens.
At least on Android you can load any app you want at any time even if Google delists it from the play store. Literally did this the other day to install an app that Google didn't allow that was only hosted on fdroid
I have had girls halfway through giving me their number, stop because they realize it's not an iPhone
They're doing you a favor: they're telling you they're too shallow and care more about what you own than who you are. Works great to filter those people, I'd call it a feature not a bug :)
Are you seriously telling me you've never been in a single groupchat where people say things like "Wait who doesn't have an iPhone in here"? Because I've been in dozens.
Never ever, but maybe my friends actually care about me more than my phone (also we use whatsapp so it doesn't matter). Only thing I can say is, sorry ...
I'm in the US, and I don't have an iPhone.
See, it's that easy.
And you do have rights as a customer, you have a right to receive the service as agreed, and you also have the responsibility to abide by the terms of service (again, see point 1).
You probably have Android which, while more open, is still ran by Google who could, at will, decide to change the rules tomorrow by forcing an update directly to your (or my) phone. Besides those two, there isn't much. While competition and free market is good, it's not always enough, sometimes regulation is needed.
There is regulation.
𝐈𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐓𝐎𝐒 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬' 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐎𝐒 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐈𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐎𝐒 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐈𝐟 𝐬𝐨, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
Terms of service can be incredibly one sided. And you don't have the option to not agree or negotiate, and still use the hardware you paid for in a reasonable way.
If there actually were serious ramifications to not having an Iphone in the US, then Android wouldn't have more than 40% market share.
The only thing you guys have a problem with are pompous snooty egomaniacs who care about the OS on someone else's phone.
Why do you care what other people think about the brand of phone you use? And I say this as someone who has an iPhone. I don't give a shit if someone thinks I have an iPhone or a Nokia 3310. Why would I?
I'm aware of it. But this is not the same as letting Nazis hang out in your bar turning it into a Nazi bad, you don't have to even interact, see, or be aware of the shitty things that others do with their own devices.
Apple is a private company that doesn't want to promote this rapist. It's their right.
Owning black people was also the right of plantation owners. And Nazis said they had a lot of rights as well...
If you think that something being a legal right means it morally should be, you're on the wrong side of history.
You're comparing Apple to Nazis because they don't want to be in business with a rapist scumbag?
No, I'm saying just because we currently don't regulate large corporations enough doesn't mean they should have the right to fuck over anybody they want to
As a privately owned company, they reserve the right to not support rapists.Stop advocating for a rapist.
I don't support rapists. That dude and people that want his app suck.
But everybody deserves to be able to run whatever software there want on their devices. And no company should be able to tell you what to do with things that you own.
Apple doesn't have to provide a platform for a rapist. They have that right. Do you not support freedom?
See, when it's your own home, you can claim that freedom, not to allow unwanted guests. Already if you have a public business, there are anti-discrimination rules. And if you own the whole goddamn city, if that was possible, you probably should have even more restrictions to imposing your will. Apple & Google together have a monopoly on smartphones, so it's like someone owned all the public squares in the country and decided certain things or people are banned. Legal, maybe, good, not really.
(If he does get convicted of rape, btw, then he will lose the right to live anywhere but a prison, and so he should also lose access to platforms like Apple. The problem is, that hasn't happened yet)
I support freedom for people. Apple is not a person.
Also "platforms" like the one apple now operates is akin to a "platform" like mail which has been determined to be a right. The thing is popular opinion and regulations have not yet caught up to this, but we have never had singular corporations that have widespread control the way tech companies do now. I believe we need to rectify this and make sure that companies that act as platforms for the public stop meddling with what the public does on those platforms.
Dude nobody here is advocating for a rapist, period. We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.
As a privately owned (really, public) company, they do reserve those right. I believe that's a mistake, and that the constitution should protect free speech even on those platforms, even though it currently doesn't.
Edit: I don't mean they should make it easy to install Tate's app, mind you, just "possible". Just allowing app sideloading like Android, behind a bunch of warnings and hoops to jump, would be enough.
We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.
"People should be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences" is a garbage take on "freedom of speech". Even if you clarify it as "people be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences from large organizations", it is still a garbage take.
I believe in certain, limited restriction on freedom of speech, namely, using that freedom to curtail other people's freedom. That includes inciting violence or causing harm to others in any way, or yes, silencing them on one of the largest mobile platforms on the planet.
Protect freedom of speech- so allow child porn?
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.
And Google bans any app that allows Youtube to play while the screen is off.
Platforms owners are allowed to decide what they allow on their own platforms.
It is the same as a physical store removing certain products from their shelves. Nobody should force them to add any they do not want on there.
Don't like it? Start your own platform.
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.
How about the pyramid scheme thing? How about malware? You gonna bust out your pseduo-Voltaire to defend malware too?
Do you believe it's actually possible to eliminate malware? I don't, and I don't think fear of that is a good reason to let a megacorp censored and suppress people's rights.
Also that quote wasn't actually said by Voltaire, but I have another out of context and disputed quote for you that's very relevant here:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
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.
You sound twelve
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.
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.
Nonsense, no one died to allow anyone to run their apps on Apple systems.