11–20 of 71 posts
That said, I don't believe an app shall be removed because it may be deemed offensive (by whatever standards).
Or as Voltaire put it:
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
I really don't know how good the "offensive to large groups of people" standard is. If there were a Qur'an app, might not a large group of (racist, xenophobic) people find the idea of a book dictated by an angel to be offensive? Fortunately, Apple is a corporation and need not concern itself with being as exactingly fair as the federal government.
Apple doesn't actually have to be fair at all. They do, however, have to keep their shareholders happy, and that means they have to be careful not to do things that will significantly hurt sales.
I'm sure a number of religious conservatives are going to be unhappy with Apple's removal of the app.
People like me (who think the app is absurd and are not religious conservatives) may not like the removal of a religious perspective even though we disagree with it (as long as the app doesn't violate any laws, advocate violence etc.)
It didn't deserve to be removed in my opinion. It wasn't hurting anyone by being there. That being said, I can understand why Apple did remove it, because it doesn't make any business sense to enter a PR war over the relatively miniscule amount of profit they'd make from this app.
Why are people downvoting this? I'm not saying it should necessarily be upvoted or anything, I'm just wondering what part of it people are taking exception to.
(I am not taking that position, or any other position about the app or photophotoplasm’s comment, in this comment. I’m staying strictly on the meta level here. Void where prohibited by law. Contents may settle during shipping.)
I really don't know how good the "offensive to large groups of people" standard is. If there were a Qur'an app, might not a large group of (racist, xenophobic) people find the idea of a book dictated by an angel to be offensive? Fortunately, Apple is a corporation and need not concern itself with being as exactingly fair as the federal government.
Create some litmus test apps, then. Put up a "Christian Cure" and "Muslim Cure" app and see if they get taken down or rejected. It would be interesting to see the results.
It didn't deserve to be removed in my opinion. It wasn't hurting anyone by being there. That being said, I can understand why Apple did remove it, because it doesn't make any business sense to enter a PR war over the relatively miniscule amount of profit they'd make from this app.
> It wasn't hurting anyone by being there I have to respectfully disagree. I'm glad they got rid of this stupid app. It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science. Apple made the right decision. "app store removes questionable content" -- How is this news? It's not like the app store is known for being a "free" or "open" platform in the first place.
If it was hateful, I agree. But I don't think the article even says what the app does, so how do we know that it was "hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science"?
I assumed this app was supposed to help "ex-gays" (or whatever they call themselves now) somehow. If that's the case, it's probably only being downloaded by people already involved in this stuff anyway.
So if they're downloading it out of their own free will, and it doesn't incite hate or violence, I don't see why it needs to be censored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It wasn't hurting anyone by being there I have to respectfully disagree. I'm glad they got rid of this stupid app. It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science. Apple made the right decision. "app store removes questionable content" -- How is this news? It's not like the app store is known for being a "free" or "open" platform in the first place.
> I have to respectfully disagree. I'm glad they got rid of this stupid app. It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science. If it was hateful, I agree. But I don't think the article even says what the app does, so how do we know that it was "hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science"? I assumed this app was supposed to help "ex-gays" (or whatever they call themselves now) somehow. If that's the case, it's probably on…
It incites intolerance by implying that homosexuality is a disease.
This app may or may not be offensive. Personally (being straight) I find the idea of a "gay cure app" or "gay cure seminars" or "gay cure exorcism" despicable and repulsive. That said, I don't believe an app shall be removed because it may be deemed offensive (by whatever standards). Or as Voltaire put it: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
Or rather, if you make it your missing to ban "offensive" apps and a "gay cure app" gets approved, then you look like an ass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It wasn't hurting anyone by being there I have to respectfully disagree. I'm glad they got rid of this stupid app. It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science. Apple made the right decision. "app store removes questionable content" -- How is this news? It's not like the app store is known for being a "free" or "open" platform in the first place.
> I have to respectfully disagree. I'm glad they got rid of this stupid app. It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science. If it was hateful, I agree. But I don't think the article even says what the app does, so how do we know that it was "hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science"? I assumed this app was supposed to help "ex-gays" (or whatever they call themselves now) somehow. If that's the case, it's probably on…
This is the limit of freedom of speech under the US Constitution. This is not the limit for morally acceptable behavior, and has nothing at all to do with a private company's control over their historically tightly and arbitrarily controlled ecosystem.
edit: not even this. Incitements of violence is the limit of constitutional free speech, not mere hatred. But to believe that propaganda claiming some people can and should be "cured" of their sexuality isn't hatred is idiotic at best.
It didn't deserve to be removed in my opinion. It wasn't hurting anyone by being there. That being said, I can understand why Apple did remove it, because it doesn't make any business sense to enter a PR war over the relatively miniscule amount of profit they'd make from this app.