231–240 of 693 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly the real enemy (if people are genuinely offended I tend to side with them) is people being offended on behalf of other people.
You're assuming that this is actually the reason. It smells to me like the real reason they kicked it off the platform has fuck all to do with the name, but feigning "wokeness" serves as a decent cover for a variety of evils.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have a point based on the wording of their own rule, because amphetamines are not a class of controlled substances. They don't have a point based on basic common sense either, because this application isn't telling people to use amphetamines. It's a metaphor.
To add a little detail to what others said, amphetamine and its salts are explicitly a Schedule II controlled substance in the US. https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_12.ht...
Though, Schedule II means it has accepted medical uses, so it is not illegal. For instance, lots of kids are prescribed amphetamines for ADHD.
The part of the policy that actually references "controlled substances" only forbids apps that facilitate their sale by non-pharmacies.
I think the GGP has a point if you replace "controlled substances" with "illegal drugs." The reviewer obviously seems to think the terms are synonymous (which is false), and banned the app under the clause that forbids "encourag[ing] consumption of ... illegal drugs."
Leaving everything else aside, this reviewer pretty clearly failed to understand and reasonably apply the policy as written. Reference != promotion and "controlled substance" != "illegal drugs" (all illegal drugs are controlled substances, but the reverse is not true).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My only argument is that it’s reasonable for the GP to say that meth is amphetamine, even if it’s grammatically more correct to say an amphetamine. It’s basically bullshit to dismiss what they were saying on the basis of this pedantry. Amphetamine is a structural class. It’s also clearly true that people not versed in chemistry associate meth with amphetamine. What’s ‘technically’ correct to a chemist really isn’t re…
The relevancy to the debate is established by the meaning of the word. Which is a technical issue. Leaving the definition of a precise term to the whims of layman results in that we can't any longer say if we are talking about the same things. Look no further then to this very thread.
This has always been true. Wouldn’t you say?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m not offended by the word “fuck” but I don’t really want to buy products that are named that. Then don't. How is this relevant? They say the app has been downloaded 500,000 times, so many people are fine with the name. These stories keep coming; they should remind us that nothing is more precious than the open web, and all those stores or walled gardens, their "rules" and vague TOS are the ennemy.
In my mind maybe this is something like an HOA. Sure, your friends might love your house parties, but your neighbors have to deal with the consequences
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly if your name your product stupid things I would think that some of us might be choosing not to download your product as a result. And if a store decides not to sell your product because of this it’s really their prerogative. Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake. This name is pretty rings rather badly in my ears, though I’m not offen…
[Sorry, I'm a bit hyped up at the moment] This is all ridiculous and I don't like where we're headed as a society.
Similarly, I would avoid naming something potentially weird or offensively for much the same reason, no matter how appropriate or funny it might seem at the time.
While rebranding might be a pain, I suggest just doing it. This not a free speech hill worth dying on, in my opinion.
One of the main points is that apple has a hierarchy of priorities for their App Store: protect Apple's brand, protect the customer, then make money (timestamp 5:08 in video). Apple probably got some complaints about the name of the program (probably 100 or less) and decided it wasn't worth the $0 it was making to leave it up.
Well-written argument for the app reviewers to get bent, especially the highlighted examples of other apps that show the rule is clearly applied inconsistently. Apple's App Store moderation is embarrassing. They routinely fail to catch harmful junk—I've shut down a few top-grossing bogus antivirus apps for Mac, and the publisher of Untitled Goose Game routinely posts screenshots of clones that are trying to make mone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly if your name your product stupid things I would think that some of us might be choosing not to download your product as a result. And if a store decides not to sell your product because of this it’s really their prerogative. Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake. This name is pretty rings rather badly in my ears, though I’m not offen…
> I’m not offended by the word “fuck” but I don’t really want to buy products that are named that. Then don't. How is this relevant? They say the app has been downloaded 500,000 times, so many people are fine with the name. These stories keep coming; they should remind us that nothing is more precious than the open web, and all those stores or walled gardens, their "rules" and vague TOS are the ennemy.
You’re angry. I’ve felt this in a trademark lawsuit. You think the world should get behind you and change the corrupt system. My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition. They kind of have a point which doesn’t make them right, but they hold all the cards and you will lose this one and regret the wasted bandwidth.
Honestly if your name your product stupid things I would think that some of us might be choosing not to download your product as a result. And if a store decides not to sell your product because of this it’s really their prerogative. Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake. This name is pretty rings rather badly in my ears, though I’m not offen…
You’re angry. I’ve felt this in a trademark lawsuit. You think the world should get behind you and change the corrupt system. My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition. They kind of have a point which doesn’t make them right, but they hold all the cards and you will lose this one and regret the wasted bandwidth.
Honestly if your name your product stupid things I would think that some of us might be choosing not to download your product as a result. And if a store decides not to sell your product because of this it’s really their prerogative. Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake. This name is pretty rings rather badly in my ears, though I’m not offen…
Well it gives you an argument I think. Along the lines of a trademark infringement -- if you have let people use your trademark name for years without protest, that can work against you if you suddenly start demanding that it be enforced.
Not sure it would hold much weight here, since it's a case of Apple deciding what they want to allow in their own store.