> It becomes a question of whether you support the principles behind the functionality provided I prefer to listen to voices of people directly affected rather

> It becomes a question of whether you support the principles behind the functionality provided I prefer to listen to voices of people directly affected rather than organizations operating on the other side of the world. As soon as women living in Saudi Arabia are saying that having this app is harmful, I'm all for having it gone. Right now what I hear is that the system is harmful (I think we're in violent agreement about that) and that the app helps in some cases while not making anything worse in all other situations. When it comes to "supporting the principles": I'd rather have them keep apps in the stores that aren't harmful (as said: I believe that this app doesn't make anything worse, in some cases it may even make things better) and stay out of morality based decisions, because at some point their morality will not agree with mine. Apparently Google and Apple aren't too hot on unionization (at least there don't seem to be unions in either company). Should they remove apps by unions from their stores because they don't support the principle? (but for the record: I'm not a fan of app stores as only, or even just primary application distribution channel. IMHO there should be no such curator who has to make this type of call) > thanks to bugs/exploits in the software It's not bugs in the software that enable leaving the country without physical presence and signature of a legal guardian. It's that these (hard to forge) factors were replaced by (easy to forge) phone ownership. By removing the app they'd go a long way to fix that "bug".