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

  • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Cam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      54
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Cam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          39
          ·
          1 year ago

          The app was taken down because it had Andrew Tate’s name on it, lets not kid ourselves.

          Even if you were correct on why the app was taken down due to “it will cause violence”, minus well ban all social media apps and messanging apps.

          If the app was banned due to it being a scam (which is not the case), that is reasonable to protect users, but still sucks since even if the app was banned with the excuse of it being a scam, iOS users are SOL since there is no alternative way to really install apps on iOS.

            • Cam@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              I never used the app. However I know many tankies hate Andree Tate and Lemmy is full of tankies. I doubt a famous guy on the internet will start a scam app which will ruin his reputation. And seeing people get cancelled by tankies over snd over again with false accusations, I am sure the accusation of this app being a scam is false.

              Even if the app is a complete scam and Andrew Tate made it to scam his fans, sadly tankes online have zero credibility for making that accusation. Why should I trust lefties (a cult following) that cancelled so many people over false accusations in the past?

              Call me a fanboy if you want, I do not know much about the man. Even if Andrew Tate is a truly evil man, it is not my fault since the reputstion tankies have made when it comes to “he should be cancelled” is always due to absurb reasons and is fuelled with envy and hate.

              If you do not like my answer to this, fine. I do not care and thats your problem since cancel culture brought me to this conclusion. And I am against censorship in general which is known to piss off many tankies.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I doubt a famous guy on the internet will start a scam app which will ruin his reputation.

                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.

          • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            scam (which is not the case)

            I’m guessing you haven’t visited the website, because it screams “Scam!”

            no alternative way to install apps on iOS

            Apple users can install PWAs.

            • Cam@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              cis het

              I stop reading after that since those are made up words.

              My two cents is that censorship is bad. Not many on lemmy get it since they see censorship as a weapon to use against their opponents. However censorship usually always gets out of control over time and that is why I oppose it.

              Android is the way to go since Android is censorship resistant to app store bannings by allowing APK sideloads and alternative app stores to Google Play.

          • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If the app was banned due to it being a scam (which is not the case)

            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:

            the app deliberately targets young men and encourages misogyny, including members of the app sharing techniques on how to control and exploit women. The firm has also claimed that there is evidence to suggest that the app is an illegal pyramid scheme

            • Cam@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              The main assertion in the article is:

              It is a Guardian article. Not a trustworthy source, has a strong leftie bias and has been known to dox people in the past.

              Therefore, why should I take the article accusations seriously?

              • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • Marruk@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m confident that the amount of things you cannot imagine is quite substantial; certainly far more than that of an average person.

      • Lantern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Cam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          An app won’t kill anyone on its own. Just like how guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

          • Smc87@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What about an app whose intention is to make it easier to kill as specific subset of people?

          • Lantern@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.