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 part of a thread.
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.
Ah, so your solution to the supporting a human trafficker problem is to go somewhere else unless there's nowhere else to go. Not to stop the human trafficker from making money. Interesting.
The solution is to have a court of law convict him. Where the hell did you get those things you wrote? I never said them for sure.
If he's convicted, he can still make money off of his app. How about not allowing him to do that? Too anti-free speech?
If he's convicted, or if I judge orders it before he's convicted, then the app goes down. It shouldn't be up to Apple because of the monopoly / walled garden they created.
If they just allowed 3rd party apps and/or sideloading apps, none of this would be a concern and I'd be 100% ok with Apple taking it off their store.
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.