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

  • Grant_M@lemmy.caEnglish
    93·
    1 year ago

    As a privately owned company, they reserve the right to not support rapists.Stop advocating for a rapist.

    • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
      38·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Grant_M@lemmy.caEnglish
        53·
        1 year ago

        Apple doesn’t have to provide a platform for a rapist. They have that right. Do you not support freedom?

        • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
          25·
          1 year ago

          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)

        • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
          28·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
              26·
              1 year ago

              You also apparently never read or respond to the actual point other people are making.

              • Marruk@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                Ironic, considering I’m still waiting to hear who determined mail to be right.

          • Marruk@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            a “platform” like mail which has been determined to be a right.

            When was mail determined to be a right, and by whom?

    • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
      29·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Grant_M@lemmy.caEnglish
        63·
        1 year ago

        So what you’re saying is the people at Apple have no freedom of speech, only rapists like Tate?

        • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
          23·
          1 year ago

          That’s what you’re saying, not me. Re-read my words, and if you actually want to have a civil and respectful conversation, I’ll be here, but don’t put words in my mouth

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
            31·
            1 year ago

            You are the one saying Apple shouldn’t be allowed to use their “freedom of speech” to promote the things they want to promote.

            • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Not exactly, they shouldn’t be allowed to monopolize the market with unfair practices, should be required to allow app sideloading and/or 3rd party app stores and/or jailbreak without hacking (all things already true for Android btw). But until they do, then yes, their freedom should not be used to curtail other people’s own freedom (“my freedom ends where yours begins” principle).

      • Marruk@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          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.