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.
"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.
You're leaving it up to Apple if he's convicted too. Either way it's up to Apple. They aren't legally required to get rid of an app of a convicted rapist and human trafficker. So what's the difference?
They aren't legally required to get rid of an app of a convicted rapist and human trafficker.
I'm arguing that they should be legally required to take it down in that case if ordered by a judge, and also, that they should be legally required to let users install whatever app they want on their device, either side loading, 3rd party stores, or whatever.
Currently these aren't true, but one can dream
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.