7 ms·
Apple removes "Gay Cure" app from iTunes
- rflrob 16y agoI really don't know how good the "offensive to large groups of people" standard is. If there were a Qur'an app, might not a large group of (racist, xenophobic) people find the idea of a book dictated by an angel to be offensive? Fortunately, Apple is a corporation and need not concern itself with being as exactingly fair as the federal government.
- tomjen3 16y agoMore to the point, apple would never have approved the sceptics annotated bible.
- tallanvor 16y agoApple doesn't actually have to be fair at all. They do, however, have to keep their shareholders happy, and that means they have to be careful not to do things that will significantly hurt sales.
- credo 16y agoHowever, the perception of being unfair can potentially hurt Apple. I'm sure a number of religious conservatives are going to be unhappy with Apple's removal of the app. People like me (who think the app is absurd and are not religious conservatives) may not like the removal of a religious perspective even though we disagree with it (as long as the app doesn't violate any laws, advocate violence etc.)
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- timdorr 16y agoCreate some litmus test apps, then. Put up a "Christian Cure" and "Muslim Cure" app and see if they get taken down or rejected. It would be interesting to see the results.
- statictype 16y agoI'm sure they would get removed. Those sound just as offensive.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- gradschool 16y agoNot that interesting because they'd be obvious trolls. How about an app that purports to give support and counseling people who are questioning their sexuality, in two versions, with one for straight people who think they might be turning gay, and the other for gay people who think they might be turning straight? If one of them is denounced as homophobic and the other is approved, you could be on to something.
- beej71 16y ago"Straight Cure".
- photophotoplasm 16y agoIt didn't deserve to be removed in my opinion. It wasn't hurting anyone by being there. That being said, I can understand why Apple did remove it, because it doesn't make any business sense to enter a PR war over the relatively miniscule amount of profit they'd make from this app.
- MarkSimpson 16y agoWhy are people downvoting this? I'm not saying it should necessarily be upvoted or anything, I'm just wondering what part of it people are taking exception to.
- celoyd 16y agoI did not downvote it. However, I imagine that some people think that this app does hurt people, albeit indirectly, and that this is so obvious that someone overlooking it is either a troll or oblivious. (I am not taking that position, or any other position about the app or photophotoplasm’s comment, in this comment. I’m staying strictly on the meta level here. Void where prohibited by law. Contents may settle during shipping.)
- tallanvor 16y agoI downvoted because the statement "It wasn't hurting anyone by being there" is wrong. Organizations and programs that advocate the ability to cure homosexuality are responsible for a lot of harm to individuals who are either forced into their programs or go to them willingly because they think something is wrong with them. These programs have caused or contributed to suicides among the LGBT community, so to say they aren't hurting anyone is just wrong. this article mentions this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/nyregion/12group.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/nyregion/12group.html?_r=3...
- westicle 16y agoA little recursive perhaps, but why on earth are people downvoting this? Parent not only responded to the question directly and cogently, but even cited sources. I'm bewildered.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- CaptainZapp 16y agoThis app may or may not be offensive. Personally (being straight) I find the idea of a "gay cure app" or "gay cure seminars" or "gay cure exorcism" despicable and repulsive. That said, I don't believe an app shall be removed because it may be deemed offensive (by whatever standards). Or as Voltaire put it: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
- bad_user 16y agoYes, but you know what's worse than removing "offensive" apps? Being selective about it. Or rather, if you make it your missing to ban "offensive" apps and a "gay cure app" gets approved, then you look like an ass.
- henrikschroder 16y agoThat makes no sense, "offensive" is an arbitrary standard anyway. By definition you're being selective about it. I guess in this case Apple's standard is that they remove apps that are offensive to their shareholders and customers.
- bad_user 16y agoThe term is subjective, yes, but an app that promises a Gay Cure is by definition offensive, no matter what definition of "offensive" you choose -- it's also medically dangerous, since gayness is not really a disease. So if Apple pretends that it's doing this approval for the betterment of the App Store, like a Shepard blocking out impure apps from its garden, then they'd better make sure Gay Cure apps are out, otherwise they are hypocrites.
- officemonkey 16y agoSmoking is medically dangerous. Should Apple ban iSmokeit and other apps that facilitate smoking?
- 16y ago
- FirstHopSystems 16y agoLooks like Apple has cured the the 'Gay Cure' app.
- FirstHopSystems 16y agoDown Voting "Really?" I will try to be more elegant when mentioning Apple removed the Gay Cure app? Maybe throw something in there about lean methodology and MVP next time.
- corin_ 16y agoA part of me does support totally free speech, but the other part of me is what made me one of the demonstrators against the Oxford Union when they had invited David Irving and Nick Griffin, and also that made me be one of the many people who emailed Apple (or, more specifically, Jobs) to complain about this app.
- megablast 16y agoMost of us feel the same way, but surely free speech is so much more important than these other issues.
- corin_ 16y agoI've tried to have that debate between my two opinions so many times, but haven't managed to find a way to be OK with people who are racist or homophobic. I'd still defend the right to call me stupid, to call all British people stupid (my country), and many other things. But some hatred goes too far over the line for me to not want to try and prevent. I'm not particularly up on legal systems, but I believe that in both the US and the UK the law is with me, to an extent at least - while freedom of speech is promised, there are also laws against types of "hate speech"? Plus, freedom of speech says that they should be able to have that opinion and to say that opinion, not that they have the right to have third parties promote that opinion. Extending that is why I had the right to complain to Apple, and, while their removing the app isn't exactly a case of "free speech", it is a case of them being able to chose what their company sells based on moral choices.
- electromagnetic 16y agoAFAIK in both the US and UK you can still say whatever you want quite freely. Where the issue comes up is when people try to incite hatred, because all our laws fall under everyone else's rights being above our own.
- wlievens 16y agoClassifying blatant racism under free speech can have actual consequences too. Consider the genocide in Rwanda in which racist radio programmes encouraged massive killings. You could say that everyone's responsible for their own actions, nobody forced anyone to grab machettes and kill their neighbours, but somehow that argument falls apart when you're dealing with mass hysteria.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- stretchwithme 16y agoI think its fine if apps making fraudulent claims are removed.
- sigzero 16y agoExcept there are thousands of people that would say it isn't fraudulent. I am not defending it, but "offensive" here is subjective.
- Alex3917 16y agoIf they can present peer reviewed evidence of its efficacy then it should stay, otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to make false medical claims.
- spindritf 16y agoWhat about an app "curing shyness"? Would you expect a peer reviewed evidence of its efficacy? IMVHO that's a ridiculous standard for a lifestyle app.
- Alex3917 16y agoI'm only arguing in favor of applying this standard of curation to apps that provide medical advice, I wouldn't currently apply the same standard to other industries. This is as much for social signaling reasons as anything else. For whatever reason, the medical industry is responsible for more spam and hucksterism than all other industries combined, so if you don't curate what people are providing then the entire app store loses it's value and credibility really fast.
- gte910h 16y agoSo you're saying bye bye hypnotism apps too? And bye bye business books? I think the app is absurd, but I think the call for apple to censor it is wrong.
- 16y ago
- fredBuddemeyer 16y agowhy not get out of the judgment business, it's a loser. just let (a significant number of) users report "potentially offensive apps" and make a category out of it. if the ratio is overwhelming then (users) ban the app.
- michaelcampbell 16y agoOffensive or not, it's just snake oil and should be removed based on that alone.
- kristofferR 16y agoHow's this app any different from apps "curing" judaism or blackness? It isn't. It's pretty clear that nazism, racism, gaycism and other hateful applications shouldn't be allowed on the Apple App Store.
- willstraf 16y ago> "It's pretty clear that nazism, racism, gaycism and other hateful applications shouldn't be allowed on the Apple App Store." Yes, exactly. I'm not sure if that above statement was an attempt at sarcasm, but it's completely true, they shouldn't be allowed.