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

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
      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 Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        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?

        • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
          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 Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            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.

            • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
              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 Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                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?

                • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  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 Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    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?