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

  • @[email protected]English
    1•1 year ago

    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.

    • Flying SquidEnglish
      1•1 year ago

      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?

      • @[email protected]English
        1•1 year ago

        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.

        • Flying SquidEnglish
          0•1 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]English
            1•1 year ago

            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.

            • Flying SquidEnglish
              0•1 year ago

              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?

              • @[email protected]English
                1•1 year ago

                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.

                • Flying SquidEnglish
                  0•1 year ago

                  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?

                  • @[email protected]English
                    1•1 year ago

                    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