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

    • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
      217·
      1 year ago

      No, protection from government persecution is just what the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution provides.

      The general concept of freedom of speech is larger than that, and there is nothing about a large powerful corporation that should mean they are allowed to fuck you over for what you say

        • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
          213·
          1 year ago

          Okay, aside from 1 ascii character being off, have any meaningful response to what I meant with my comment?

            • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
              315·
              1 year ago
              1. It’s not as simple as “not doing business with apple”. There are serious social ramifications to not having an iPhone in the US.
              2. Even if I choose to do business with them, I should still have Rights as a customer.

              It’s not easy

              • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                1 year ago

                I have android, I don’t feel many “social ramifications” thankfully. Android is a bit more free, but it’s still ran by a large corporation that can change the rules at will, so there is no truly free (as in “freedom”) option. So, maybe it’s a duopoly instead of a monopoly, not much better really.

                (ok ok, there are some fringe minor alternatives, but not really ready for prime time).

                • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  113·
                  1 year ago

                  I have had girls halfway through giving me their number, stop because they realize it’s not an iPhone. I have friends I hang out with multiple times a week for almost a decade that don’t add me to the friends group chat because it’s 15 iOS users and most don’t want to deal with non iMessage messaging. Are you seriously telling me you’ve never been in a single groupchat where people say things like “Wait who doesn’t have an iPhone in here”? Because I’ve been in dozens.

                  At least on Android you can load any app you want at any time even if Google delists it from the play store. Literally did this the other day to install an app that Google didn’t allow that was only hosted on fdroid

                  • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    1 year ago

                    I have had girls halfway through giving me their number, stop because they realize it’s not an iPhone

                    They’re doing you a favor: they’re telling you they’re too shallow and care more about what you own than who you are. Works great to filter those people, I’d call it a feature not a bug :)

                    Are you seriously telling me you’ve never been in a single groupchat where people say things like “Wait who doesn’t have an iPhone in here”? Because I’ve been in dozens.

                    Never ever, but maybe my friends actually care about me more than my phone (also we use whatsapp so it doesn’t matter). Only thing I can say is, sorry …

                • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  1 year ago

                  You probably have Android which, while more open, is still ran by Google who could, at will, decide to change the rules tomorrow by forcing an update directly to your (or my) phone. Besides those two, there isn’t much. While competition and free market is good, it’s not always enough, sometimes regulation is needed.

                • hyperhopper@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  24·
                  1 year ago

                  Terms of service can be incredibly one sided. And you don’t have the option to not agree or negotiate, and still use the hardware you paid for in a reasonable way.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                5·
                1 year ago

                Why do you care what other people think about the brand of phone you use? And I say this as someone who has an iPhone. I don’t give a shit if someone thinks I have an iPhone or a Nokia 3310. Why would I?

              • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
                72·
                1 year ago

                If there actually were serious ramifications to not having an Iphone in the US, then Android wouldn’t have more than 40% market share.

                The only thing you guys have a problem with are pompous snooty egomaniacs who care about the OS on someone else’s phone.

    • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
      116·
      1 year ago

      In the USA (yes, there are other countries where Apple operates but anyways…) the 1st amendment, unfortunately, doesn’t protect speech on social media, only from government persecution. We cannot read the minds of the framer of the constitution, but I firmly believe they are now rolling in their graves, as they couldn’t have foreseen the internet and social media, and so didn’t account for those.

      Exactly because the 1st amendment is effectively neutered, freedom of speech in America is in grave danger and we shouldn’t rejoice about it.

        • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
          212·
          1 year ago

          I expect that once he’s convicted, not just accused, they should not only be allowed, but required to ban him (“innocent until proven guilty”).

          And yes, I believe once your platform get big enough to be effectively considered a public square, it should be protected by the 1st amendment.

          I don’t know if there are other countries where this is true (maybe some European country? not sure) I’m just saying in this thread I’m speaking only for the USA.

            • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
              35·
              1 year ago

              “innocent until proven guilty” is a Government thing. […] A corporation is treated like a group of people, they’re not a Government.

              You’re right and I’m not denying this. I’m just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.

              I’m surprised your point on freedom of speech in other countries is hypothetical as you expressed the US version is so flawed as to be a “grave danger”

              My point was simply “I speak for America as I’m not sure about other countries”, but, I went googling around and it seems other countries (I looked mostly at Europe) are not much better, so I have to conclude freedom of speech is in grave danger pretty much everywhere in the world.

              The US (or European) version isn’t flawed, it’s behind the times, as internet, mobile phones and social media didn’t exist when it was written.

              • 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?

              • Marruk@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                1 year ago

                I’m just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.

                Instead of treating huge corporations that actively suppress competition like they’re a de facto form of government, we should instead… prevent them from getting to the point where their size and market share grants them power over the lives of citizens comparable to that of the government.

          • Vlhacs@reddthat.comEnglish
            31·
            1 year ago

            But the app itself has already been deemed inappropriate and harmful to the consumer, on its own merits and not related to Tate himself. Equating this to removal of free speech is a false equivalency, that right is not being infringed on and is the wrong argument to be having. Tate has plenty more platforms to freely spew his misogynistic BS.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            But he is already guilty of hate speech. That’s why he was banned on multiple platforms like YouTube and TikTok. On that issue alone Apple can cancel their contract with him.

            • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              […] alleging that Andrew Tate […]

              Did you read the article? Do you know what “alleged” means? There is a trial, let’s wait till the verdict is out

              Edit: to be clear, I hope he gets convicted, but let justice do its course.

              Edit2: If the app was deemed dangerous, the judge in the trial should rule to ban the app waiting for the verdict, not Apple.