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 must log in or # to comment.
“Created”
I don’t believe that this app was created by Andrew Tate.
It’s just language, they don’t mean he sat down and coded it. He and his team hired someone to do it, just like his websites.
Would be interesting to see how the guy who claimed “he was too smart to read books” would learn programming.
He’s smart enough to know that labor value doesn’t translate into revenue, no matter how high the quality. The most valuable attribute of a salesman is fame. And you don’t need to read books in order to become famous.
So, just like Mike Lindell or Joel Osteen, you can churn out whatever crap you want. Build a large enough platform for reaching the rubes and that’s all that matters. Demonstrate a high degree of enthusiasm for your own product, put on the appearance of wealth and success to convince other people to follow in your footsteps, and then milk those suckers for all their worth.
After that, the “I don’t need to learn to read” becomes a means of selecting for people who lack sufficient literacy to see through your con-game.
“Good old” faking confidence beats actual competence. Or at least in marketing, it tends to break to bits when you have to actually do something useful.
Fuck that shitstain, I hope people demand refunds and he’s forced to pay.
deleted by creator
Affiliate marketing is what they’re doing under “Hustler’s university”. Probably the same thing.
deleted by creator
Very simple, really. An app that charged less than $49.99/mo would be poor-guy shit.
deleted by creator
Let’s all agree to call him “Andrew Hate” and maybe this shitshow can finish earlier than later.
I would prefer to not talk about him at all, but if there’s any reason to discuss him I’d prefer to call him farthole taint. Or just farthole. Or .
let’s all call him drumpf and surely he will be gone
deleted by creator
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
While I truly believe the dude and his app are bad, Apple shouldn’t be able to both arbitrarily remove whatever apps they want from the store, but disallow loading apps from places other than the store.
This is so dumb. It’s not arbitrary. It’s in their TOS. Apple doesn’t want the negative brand associations with him.
It is arbitrary. There is no court. There is no jury. There is no impartial third party to appeal to. Their terms of service are so vague that they could give any bs reason to take down anything they want. And they have done this to take down perfectly reasonable apps that are just critical of apple in the past.
Yeah. That’s private enterprise. Of course there is no judge or jury. It is arbitrary because it’s business and business is built on people’s feelings.
But when one businesses whims can harm the right of millions, it’s time to regulate them so the CEOs feelings don’t fuck users over.
How about the pyramid scheme thing? How about malware? You gonna bust out your pseduo-Voltaire to defend malware too?
Do you believe it’s actually possible to eliminate malware? I don’t, and I don’t think fear of that is a good reason to let a megacorp censored and suppress people’s rights.
Also that quote wasn’t actually said by Voltaire, but I have another out of context and disputed quote for you that’s very relevant here:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
A business is not a government and people need to start recognizing the boundaries of what you are actually entitled to as a basic versus what is extra.
If you walked into my printshop and used MY photocopier to routinely print Nazi fliers and this is something that I become aware of I should have the right to veto what use my photocopier is being put to. They are free to say what they want but I do not need to provide them service to assist them in it. They do not have the right to my compliance or my passive participation through use of my business to spread their garbage.
Companies can say no. Freedom of speech protects you from the government it doesn’t entitle you to use of a privately owned platform to serve as your personal megaphone.
Your printshop isn’t a de-facto public town square. Apple, Google, Twitter, and other large companies have inserted themselves into that position.
People like you that just go “government vs private business” miss the entire context, history, and nuance because why that distinction even ever mattered in the past and how it came to be.
In the past, almost every business was closer in practice to being an individual. Your local print shop. Your local hardware store, etc. And for businesses like that, I agree with you 100% , they should get the right to do what they want.
However, private mega-corporations nowadays have more power than most governments at the time the Constitution was signed. When a company has the power to decide what more than half the country can put on their own phone, that’s national level power, companies can seriously oppreess people, discriminate, etc, at this scale. Sure, this is a case of stopping a bad person, but there have also been cases of apple censoring apps critical of apple or other awful governmental atrocities in other countries. I’d rather apple not be able to censor anything, than be able to censor things like that.
And your last paragraph is flat out wrong. Freedom of Speech is a concept, that means you are free to say what you want. You might be thinking of the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which is just one thing the US government promises to do.
The thing is that that concept of business having different responsibilities that scale with size isn’t a thing. It doesn’t matter if they are a print shop or own half the god damn world they operate on the same principles. That is what make these giant conglomerates scary and why anti trust options and breaking businesses into more smaller options is a good idea. But applying your ideas of government to a business is stupid. If you want a town square get the town to build a square where those rights are protected - don’t go down to the Mall owned by a management group and then crow freedom of speech when they throw you out for yelling obnoxious shit in the food court.
Freedom of Speech is a concept - but there are two distinct ones. The actual legal protection and this fictional cootie shot bullshit of “I should be able to say whatever I want and no private citzen or group of private citizens should be able to challenge me in any way”. Honestly the second part is just entitlement half the time because last I checked those who usually advocate for the latter are usually the most willing to remove the former from entire groups of people. Personal consequences and social accountability should be and are part of that freedom. There are countries all over the world that have the freedom of speech enshrined in law but every single one places limitations of some sort of how it is protected and exercised . The US for instance has obscenity law, protected classes for whom services cannot be denied and people have the right to sue for defamation or libel. What counts as a legitimate protest (or exercise of free speech) and what gets the unruly unlawful mob treatment is also governed by a web of concepts and law. Free Speech is not an access card that removes all barriers, it’s a protection from your government and if you want your government to properly protect you from it you need to increase the space, services and property the government runs on where those rules are protected. You privatize a library you lose a lot of protections immediately because a federal or state institution has to play ball and businesses are closer to autocratic rule.
Freedom of Speech is nebulous and nuanced but in all cases, every single country that protects expression, the responsibility, rights and restrictions given to businesses work on private citizen rules and the right for a private entity to refuse or withdraw participation is just as enshrined.
he has the right to have his app. apple and google have the right to not publish it.
As for Google, I agree.
As for apple, how is anybody supposed to install the app if apple refuses to publish it? Unlike Google, they made their app store the gatekeeper as the only way to install apps for end users.
Ignore the downvotes. I’m glad somebody still believes in freedom, and not just the crazy ones (i.e. fuck Andrew Tate, but fuck censorship too). People have died for us to enjoy this right that others want to throw down the drain.
The reason why you should not have an iPhone. It is a walled garden and Apple is the ministry of truth in this walled garden.
I agree, but this is not the app to die for.
I mean, sure, I will almost always die on this hill - but for something that supports harming women (or people in general), and/or is part of a pyramid scheme? Naw dawg ima dip out for a second and go get some smokes (and also never come back).
Now, if it was like an app that was supporting human rights or something that is being removed, sure, it’s bad to have an entity control what you see/hear/interact with. And there may be gray areas between those two examples. But suppressing a human(s) just because the developer has a tiny pp and needs to overcompensate to the max? And try to gain traction and supporters to do the same? Uhh, no fucking way.
I mean, sure, I will almost always die on this hill - but for something that [Insert excuse here]
Now, if it was like an app that [Insert app that I like], sure.
Really bro? Lets say you liked Jimmy. Jimmy was a contraversal guy and Jimmy had the Jimmy app on the App Store. Then Apple took down the Jimmy app since they do not like Jimmy, Jimmy is too contraversal, Jimmy triggers too many people online.
You either die on this hill of being against censorship or you don’t.
You do not have to like or support Andrew Tate to be against his app being taken off the App Store.
I feel like your negative opinion of censorship is so strong that it overpowers your morality. Would you let a serial killer walk around shouting that we should kill everyone just for the sake of preventing censorship, or would you insist they’re locked up? See, even you have your limit.
Its a less extreme example, but the same logic applies here. We shouldn’t just let misogyny grow for the sake of ‘freedom’. That’s how you end up with stuff like the Nazis. Classic bystander mentality.
An app won’t kill anyone on its own. Just like how guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Looks like we found the libertarian. Are you really willing to let others die or be abused for the sake of ‘freedom’? Here’s the thing; we can prevent civil freedoms from being infringed upon by increasing regulation. Yes, people are the root of all evil, but that doesn’t mean we can’t manage the spread of evil by regulating the tools that make it easier for it to grow. You’re really just proving my point here. The bystander is almost just as bad as being the one doing wrong.
It’s not censorship. Censorship is something demanded of by a government. As a business owner if you use the assets of my business I am passively participating and enabling you to spread your message. If I find out what you do is horrible I have the right to retract any level of my participation from your endeavor. You are still allowed to say whatever you want but I am NOT compelled to help you even passively.
We have protected classes to stop people from uaing this right to exile vulnerable groups from being able to use all servicea in society this way as a counter measure to this right but if the form of removal is not based automatically out of what body you are walking around in or what your religious beliefs are and the ban doesn’t apply unilaterally to all members of your group for that sole reason - then it is valid.
Removed by mod
One thing I will say for the Open Source bros on here, they’re at least apolitically consistent. More than can be said for lots of ideologies these days.
I’m surprised there was an all caps free speech somewhere in there tbh. 😅
Removed by mod
I am criticizing the closed garden iOS ecosystem. This has nothing to do with Andrew Tate except the fact his app was censored for being “contraversal”.
“Controversial”? No - he’s an asshole and horrible person.
If your think he’s simply controversial then that says a lot more about you than Apple.
Apple should allow installing apps from third parties.
Apple should not let this asshole sell his app on their store.
Sigh. Your pro censorship and think those who are not are horrible. What a surprise.
Read my other comments in this thread to see why I can care less who it is. Weather it is an asshole or an angel.
*you’re
*couldn’t
*whether
Oh, I’ve read a ton of your naive “censorship is bad m’kay” takes. You think it’s sheltering your argument from criticism when it’s really not.
Some censorship is fine. Who is doing it, the magnitude, and why all matter. This is not a black and white issue.
Removed by mod
I love going onto the profiles of people that make dumbass comments like this because it’s never a 1 off dumb comment that got downvotes, it’s always that their profile is filled with either lazy troll comments or just stupid bullshit.
And this guy is certainly no exception, my favourite is him denying climate change and trying to claim that its all just a communist conspiracy.
Free heating for the masses?
Or stuff like:
Someone needs to firebomb the school board.
oh wait, that was you…
Honestly, I don’t care if he’s a climate denier or full on conspiracy theorist about everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day right? So when they say something right, I acknowledge it (and even people like you that, based on their profile are usually a bit less crazy, occasionally say crazy things as above).
How far back in my comment history did you have to go to find that one lol
Dunno… this feels like the first genuinely good news I’ve heard apple linked with in a long while.
How is censorship good news? Yeah this is all about Andrew Tate, but that is not the point. The point is that censorship is bad and censorship can occur on centralized app stores were it is done for “politicial” reasons.
I don’t care if you think Andrew Tate is evil, it is the action of banning an app because “we do not like you”. That is the problem and Apple users have no choice since they are in a walled garden.
Yo, look into the tolerance paradox and get back to me
It’s funny, because not only does he really not get what a sheep he is, but I’ve pasted the link to it on Wikipedia to him twice already. He’s really trying his hardest to stay as ignorant as possible.
Ask him his opinion of tertiary education if you want a laugh :)
I’m not the person you were replying to, but here’s my take.
We don’t need to tolerate intolerance, but that’s different than “freedom of speech”. We can still refuse to tolerate intolerance while still protecting freedom (I’m purposefully ignoring the whole “inciting violence” and “pyramid scheme” that would make this illegal, not just controversial, for the sake of this argument).
Example: on Android, you can still sideload apps at your own risk, protecting freedom, while Google can still remove it from their store, and so refusing to tolerate intolerance. (wow am I really defending Google? Well I guess at least they used not to be evil).
Some censorship is good tbh.
“land of the free” my ass … that’s the world we live in …
Sigh
“le sigh” 🤣
Google had this removed from the play store before lmao sure you could download the APK, but that’s way less user friendly and people he’s trying to target aren’t going to
Right, Google still allows some kind of freedom by allowing you to sideload the apk, while still doing the right thing and removing this abominations their store. Win win. Apple sucks (imho).
I’m not justifying a racist here but I’m just here to say I like sideloading apks. Fuck Andrew Tate.
Somebody else gets it. Thanks
While I would never need anything with Andrew Tate’s name on it, I absolutely agree with the statement and that’s why I stick with android. Upvoted.
