Apple removes app created by Andrew Tate
theguardian.com
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
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
“Created”
I don't believe that this app was created by Andrew Tate.
It's just language, they don't mean he sat down and coded it. He and his team hired someone to do it, just like his websites.
Would be interesting to see how the guy who claimed "he was too smart to read books" would learn programming.
He's smart enough to know that labor value doesn't translate into revenue, no matter how high the quality. The most valuable attribute of a salesman is fame. And you don't need to read books in order to become famous.
So, just like Mike Lindell or Joel Osteen, you can churn out whatever crap you want. Build a large enough platform for reaching the rubes and that's all that matters. Demonstrate a high degree of enthusiasm for your own product, put on the appearance of wealth and success to convince other people to follow in your footsteps, and then milk those suckers for all their worth.
After that, the "I don't need to learn to read" becomes a means of selecting for people who lack sufficient literacy to see through your con-game.
"Good old" faking confidence beats actual competence. Or at least in marketing, it tends to break to bits when you have to actually do something useful.
Fuck that shitstain, I hope people demand refunds and he’s forced to pay.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Last week, the Real World Portal app was removed from Google’s Play store after claims that it was an illegal pyramid scheme and encouraged misogyny.
Before the news that Apple had withdrawn the app, Matt Jury, the lawyer representing the women, said: “Andrew and [his brother] Tristan Tate manipulate their significant online following to promote subscriptions to Real World Portal.
He and Tristan were charged in June, along with two Romanian female suspects, with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
A spokesperson for Andrew Tate said: “We unequivocally deny the allegations that ‘The Real World’ app operates as a pyramid scheme or perpetuates harmful techniques aimed at exploiting any individuals, particularly women.
“Accusations suggesting otherwise are unfounded, lacking credible evidence, and seem to be part of a targeted campaign against Andrew Tate, a known supporter and promoter of the platform.
“The platform is designed as an educational tool that fosters healthy habit formation, financial literacy, and self-discipline, with thousands of lives positively impacted.
The original article contains 611 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Let’s all agree to call him “Andrew Hate” and maybe this shitshow can finish earlier than later.
I would prefer to not talk about him at all, but if there's any reason to discuss him I'd prefer to call him farthole taint. Or just farthole. Or .
let's all call him drumpf and surely he will be gone
I'm an Apple person. I love their platforms and could be described as a "fanboy" by people who don't employ critical thinking. That said, I want to know if Apple will forfeit the profits from sales / subscriptions of this app. They probably won't. Fuck them if they don't.
Fanboys of corporations are cringe tbh
I favor some corporations over others, based upon the quality of their products and/or services and their ethics. I don't consider myself a fanboy of those corporations, but I guess some people could say that. I think you get into fanboy territory once you start evangelizing.
Are anti-fanboys of corpos cringe? I won’t touch anything Google. I’m mostly a Windows person who is now dabbling in Linux, but I detest google things.
They are definitely less cringe, yes.
I love that the scores disagree. But this platform definitely won’t accept any anti-Google rhetoric.
This guy thinks if he calls people out for not employing critical thinking, he can just be what he doesn't want to be labeled as, without anyone calling him out.
Lol. Nice try.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
While I truly believe the dude and his app are bad, Apple shouldn't be able to both arbitrarily remove whatever apps they want from the store, but disallow loading apps from places other than the store.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I'm aware of it. But this is not the same as letting Nazis hang out in your bar turning it into a Nazi bad, you don't have to even interact, see, or be aware of the shitty things that others do with their own devices.
Apple is a private company that doesn't want to promote this rapist. It's their right.
Owning black people was also the right of plantation owners. And Nazis said they had a lot of rights as well...
If you think that something being a legal right means it morally should be, you're on the wrong side of history.
You're comparing Apple to Nazis because they don't want to be in business with a rapist scumbag?
No, I'm saying just because we currently don't regulate large corporations enough doesn't mean they should have the right to fuck over anybody they want to
As a privately owned company, they reserve the right to not support rapists.Stop advocating for a rapist.
I don't support rapists. That dude and people that want his app suck.
But everybody deserves to be able to run whatever software there want on their devices. And no company should be able to tell you what to do with things that you own.
Apple doesn't have to provide a platform for a rapist. They have that right. Do you not support freedom?
See, when it's your own home, you can claim that freedom, not to allow unwanted guests. Already if you have a public business, there are anti-discrimination rules. And if you own the whole goddamn city, if that was possible, you probably should have even more restrictions to imposing your will. Apple & Google together have a monopoly on smartphones, so it's like someone owned all the public squares in the country and decided certain things or people are banned. Legal, maybe, good, not really.
(If he does get convicted of rape, btw, then he will lose the right to live anywhere but a prison, and so he should also lose access to platforms like Apple. The problem is, that hasn't happened yet)
I support freedom for people. Apple is not a person.
Also "platforms" like the one apple now operates is akin to a "platform" like mail which has been determined to be a right. The thing is popular opinion and regulations have not yet caught up to this, but we have never had singular corporations that have widespread control the way tech companies do now. I believe we need to rectify this and make sure that companies that act as platforms for the public stop meddling with what the public does on those platforms.
Never platform rapists. Bye.
When was mail determined to be a right, and by whom?
Dude nobody here is advocating for a rapist, period. We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.
As a privately owned (really, public) company, they do reserve those right. I believe that's a mistake, and that the constitution should protect free speech even on those platforms, even though it currently doesn't.
Edit: I don't mean they should make it easy to install Tate's app, mind you, just "possible". Just allowing app sideloading like Android, behind a bunch of warnings and hoops to jump, would be enough.
So what you're saying is the people at Apple have no freedom of speech, only rapists like Tate?
That's what you're saying, not me. Re-read my words, and if you actually want to have a civil and respectful conversation, I'll be here, but don't put words in my mouth
You are the one saying Apple shouldn't be allowed to use their "freedom of speech" to promote the things they want to promote.
"People should be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences" is a garbage take on "freedom of speech". Even if you clarify it as "people be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences from large organizations", it is still a garbage take.
I believe in certain, limited restriction on freedom of speech, namely, using that freedom to curtail other people's freedom. That includes inciting violence or causing harm to others in any way, or yes, silencing them on one of the largest mobile platforms on the planet.
Protect freedom of speech- so allow child porn?
This is so dumb. It's not arbitrary. It's in their TOS. Apple doesn't want the negative brand associations with him.
It is arbitrary. There is no court. There is no jury. There is no impartial third party to appeal to. Their terms of service are so vague that they could give any bs reason to take down anything they want. And they have done this to take down perfectly reasonable apps that are just critical of apple in the past.
And Google bans any app that allows Youtube to play while the screen is off.
Platforms owners are allowed to decide what they allow on their own platforms.
It is the same as a physical store removing certain products from their shelves. Nobody should force them to add any they do not want on there.
Don't like it? Start your own platform.
Yeah. That's private enterprise. Of course there is no judge or jury. It is arbitrary because it's business and business is built on people's feelings.
But when one businesses whims can harm the right of millions, it's time to regulate them so the CEOs feelings don't fuck users over.
How about the pyramid scheme thing? How about malware? You gonna bust out your pseduo-Voltaire to defend malware too?
Do you believe it's actually possible to eliminate malware? I don't, and I don't think fear of that is a good reason to let a megacorp censored and suppress people's rights.
Also that quote wasn't actually said by Voltaire, but I have another out of context and disputed quote for you that's very relevant here:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
A business is not a government and people need to start recognizing the boundaries of what you are actually entitled to as a basic versus what is extra.
If you walked into my printshop and used MY photocopier to routinely print Nazi fliers and this is something that I become aware of I should have the right to veto what use my photocopier is being put to. They are free to say what they want but I do not need to provide them service to assist them in it. They do not have the right to my compliance or my passive participation through use of my business to spread their garbage.
Companies can say no. Freedom of speech protects you from the government it doesn't entitle you to use of a privately owned platform to serve as your personal megaphone.
Your printshop isn't a de-facto public town square. Apple, Google, Twitter, and other large companies have inserted themselves into that position.
People like you that just go "government vs private business" miss the entire context, history, and nuance because why that distinction even ever mattered in the past and how it came to be.
In the past, almost every business was closer in practice to being an individual. Your local print shop. Your local hardware store, etc. And for businesses like that, I agree with you 100% , they should get the right to do what they want.
However, private mega-corporations nowadays have more power than most governments at the time the Constitution was signed. When a company has the power to decide what more than half the country can put on their own phone, that's national level power, companies can seriously oppreess people, discriminate, etc, at this scale. Sure, this is a case of stopping a bad person, but there have also been cases of apple censoring apps critical of apple or other awful governmental atrocities in other countries. I'd rather apple not be able to censor anything, than be able to censor things like that.
And your last paragraph is flat out wrong. Freedom of Speech is a concept, that means you are free to say what you want. You might be thinking of the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which is just one thing the US government promises to do.
The thing is that that concept of business having different responsibilities that scale with size isn't a thing. It doesn't matter if they are a print shop or own half the god damn world they operate on the same principles. That is what make these giant conglomerates scary and why anti trust options and breaking businesses into more smaller options is a good idea. But applying your ideas of government to a business is stupid. If you want a town square get the town to build a square where those rights are protected - don't go down to the Mall owned by a management group and then crow freedom of speech when they throw you out for yelling obnoxious shit in the food court.
Freedom of Speech is a concept - but there are two distinct ones. The actual legal protection and this fictional cootie shot bullshit of "I should be able to say whatever I want and no private citzen or group of private citizens should be able to challenge me in any way". Honestly the second part is just entitlement half the time because last I checked those who usually advocate for the latter are usually the most willing to remove the former from entire groups of people. Personal consequences and social accountability should be and are part of that freedom. There are countries all over the world that have the freedom of speech enshrined in law but every single one places limitations of some sort of how it is protected and exercised . The US for instance has obscenity law, protected classes for whom services cannot be denied and people have the right to sue for defamation or libel. What counts as a legitimate protest (or exercise of free speech) and what gets the unruly unlawful mob treatment is also governed by a web of concepts and law. Free Speech is not an access card that removes all barriers, it's a protection from your government and if you want your government to properly protect you from it you need to increase the space, services and property the government runs on where those rules are protected. You privatize a library you lose a lot of protections immediately because a federal or state institution has to play ball and businesses are closer to autocratic rule.
Freedom of Speech is nebulous and nuanced but in all cases, every single country that protects expression, the responsibility, rights and restrictions given to businesses work on private citizen rules and the right for a private entity to refuse or withdraw participation is just as enshrined.
he has the right to have his app. apple and google have the right to not publish it.
As for Google, I agree.
As for apple, how is anybody supposed to install the app if apple refuses to publish it? Unlike Google, they made their app store the gatekeeper as the only way to install apps for end users.
Ignore the downvotes. I'm glad somebody still believes in freedom, and not just the crazy ones (i.e. fuck Andrew Tate, but fuck censorship too). People have died for us to enjoy this right that others want to throw down the drain.
The reason why you should not have an iPhone. It is a walled garden and Apple is the ministry of truth in this walled garden.
I agree, but this is not the app to die for.
I mean, sure, I will almost always die on this hill - but for something that supports harming women (or people in general), and/or is part of a pyramid scheme? Naw dawg ima dip out for a second and go get some smokes (and also never come back).
Now, if it was like an app that was supporting human rights or something that is being removed, sure, it's bad to have an entity control what you see/hear/interact with. And there may be gray areas between those two examples. But suppressing a human(s) just because the developer has a tiny pp and needs to overcompensate to the max? And try to gain traction and supporters to do the same? Uhh, no fucking way.
Really bro? Lets say you liked Jimmy. Jimmy was a contraversal guy and Jimmy had the Jimmy app on the App Store. Then Apple took down the Jimmy app since they do not like Jimmy, Jimmy is too contraversal, Jimmy triggers too many people online.
You either die on this hill of being against censorship or you don't.
You do not have to like or support Andrew Tate to be against his app being taken off the App Store.
This app didn’t get taken down because it was by a “controversial” guy. It got taken down because content in the app encouraged violence and because the app itself was a pyramid scheme (People had to pay $50/month just to use the app, with promises of rewards if they got more people to join).
Google removed the app from their store, too. Yes, you can still probably install it from their website or a third party app store on Android, and yes, it would be great if third party app stores and sideloading existed for iOS (and they kinda do, though they’re very limited) but even if they did exist it would be reasonable to expect every single one of them to refuse to host this app (especially if “hosting” entails accepting payments).
Tate can still host this via the web. He can even build a progressive web app for it. I suspect he’ll run into issues collecting that $50 monthly payment any way other than by crypto, though, since I suspect most payment processors will refuse to work with him.
The app was taken down because it had Andrew Tate's name on it, lets not kid ourselves.
Even if you were correct on why the app was taken down due to "it will cause violence", minus well ban all social media apps and messanging apps.
If the app was banned due to it being a scam (which is not the case), that is reasonable to protect users, but still sucks since even if the app was banned with the excuse of it being a scam, iOS users are SOL since there is no alternative way to really install apps on iOS.
Were you a user of this app? Why do you say it's not a scam?
I never used the app. However I know many tankies hate Andree Tate and Lemmy is full of tankies. I doubt a famous guy on the internet will start a scam app which will ruin his reputation. And seeing people get cancelled by tankies over snd over again with false accusations, I am sure the accusation of this app being a scam is false.
Even if the app is a complete scam and Andrew Tate made it to scam his fans, sadly tankes online have zero credibility for making that accusation. Why should I trust lefties (a cult following) that cancelled so many people over false accusations in the past?
Call me a fanboy if you want, I do not know much about the man. Even if Andrew Tate is a truly evil man, it is not my fault since the reputstion tankies have made when it comes to "he should be cancelled" is always due to absurb reasons and is fuelled with envy and hate.
If you do not like my answer to this, fine. I do not care and thats your problem since cancel culture brought me to this conclusion. And I am against censorship in general which is known to piss off many tankies.
Tankies, lefties, and cancel culture, got it.
Do you also doubt a famous guy on the internet would traffic women and then charge people a fee to learn how to traffic women? Because that's what Andrew Tate did.
If the issue were his name, then it wouldn’t have made it on the App Store in the first place.
Apple also removes social media apps that don’t meet their standards for moderation, so that’s already a thing. For example:
Note that Apple didn’t remove “Truth Social” (though Google did) so this isn’t a political issue (it may be for Google, but I doubt it).
Check out Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines. Personally, I approve of Apple protecting its users from scams and other dangerous content. There are a ton of things I’d love for them to be more open about allowing, but I’m fine with them banning apps like this one.
Is your issue that you don’t like Apple’s requirements? If so, this app is an excellent point in their favor in most people’s eyes.
Is your issue that you think Apple’s requirements are discriminatory in some way? If so, an app by a cis het white misogynist is probably not a great example of that.
Do you think their standards were applied unfairly? If so, I find it hard to believe that you even read their guidelines.
Honestly, I get the impression that you’re just a Tate fanboy and that you’re mad that Apple pulled his app.
I’m guessing you haven’t visited the website, because it screams “Scam!”
Apple users can install PWAs.
I stop reading after that since those are made up words.
My two cents is that censorship is bad. Not many on lemmy get it since they see censorship as a weapon to use against their opponents. However censorship usually always gets out of control over time and that is why I oppose it.
Android is the way to go since Android is censorship resistant to app store bannings by allowing APK sideloads and alternative app stores to Google Play.
All words are made up.
How did you manage to read any words before those?
Ahh, so you're a complete fucking moron then. Checks out since you're defending Andrew "I moved to Romania so I wouldn't be charged with rape" Tate.
I stopped reading because your entire comment is composed of made up words.
Go fanboy somewhere else.
The term "scam" is a straw man. "Scam" is subjective, so you could define a scam as "an app that provides no content and steals your money" and conclude that the app in question is not that, and therefore fine.
The main assertion in the article is:
It is a Guardian article. Not a trustworthy source, has a strong leftie bias and has been known to dox people in the past.
Therefore, why should I take the article accusations seriously?
Sorry I don't really understand your position.
You're rejecting the quotes from the article on the basis of the publication, suggesting a better accusation would be a "scam", and then refuting that accusation as baseless.
I'm not trying to be an ass, I mean this as kindly as possible, but this is a straw man argument. You should look into logical fallacies. They're well documented tactics for manipulating people and misrepresenting information. Everyone should. It will help you to reason about information and ultimately identify when you're being manipulated.
I cannot imagine being blue pilled.
I'm confident that the amount of things you cannot imagine is quite substantial; certainly far more than that of an average person.
I feel like your negative opinion of censorship is so strong that it overpowers your morality. Would you let a serial killer walk around shouting that we should kill everyone just for the sake of preventing censorship, or would you insist they’re locked up? See, even you have your limit.
Its a less extreme example, but the same logic applies here. We shouldn’t just let misogyny grow for the sake of ‘freedom’. That’s how you end up with stuff like the Nazis. Classic bystander mentality.
An app won't kill anyone on its own. Just like how guns don't kill people, people kill people.
What about an app whose intention is to make it easier to kill as specific subset of people?
Show me an app that does that?
It’s a hypothetical
Exactly, not based in reality.
It’s telling how you will avoid any thought exercise
Just like you.
Looks like we found the libertarian. Are you really willing to let others die or be abused for the sake of ‘freedom’? Here’s the thing; we can prevent civil freedoms from being infringed upon by increasing regulation. Yes, people are the root of all evil, but that doesn’t mean we can’t manage the spread of evil by regulating the tools that make it easier for it to grow. You’re really just proving my point here. The bystander is almost just as bad as being the one doing wrong.
It's not censorship. Censorship is something demanded of by a government. As a business owner if you use the assets of my business I am passively participating and enabling you to spread your message. If I find out what you do is horrible I have the right to retract any level of my participation from your endeavor. You are still allowed to say whatever you want but I am NOT compelled to help you even passively.
We have protected classes to stop people from uaing this right to exile vulnerable groups from being able to use all servicea in society this way as a counter measure to this right but if the form of removal is not based automatically out of what body you are walking around in or what your religious beliefs are and the ban doesn't apply unilaterally to all members of your group for that sole reason - then it is valid.
I do think it's hilarious how you're viciously defending fraud and pyramid schemes. "People MUST be allowed to rob other people, and Apple MUST help and support theft!"
Just amazing.
One thing I will say for the Open Source bros on here, they're at least apolitically consistent. More than can be said for lots of ideologies these days.
I'm surprised there was an all caps free speech somewhere in there tbh. 😅
I love going onto the profiles of people that make dumbass comments like this because it's never a 1 off dumb comment that got downvotes, it's always that their profile is filled with either lazy troll comments or just stupid bullshit.
And this guy is certainly no exception, my favourite is him denying climate change and trying to claim that its all just a communist conspiracy.
Free heating for the masses?
Or stuff like:
oh wait, that was you...
Honestly, I don't care if he's a climate denier or full on conspiracy theorist about everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day right? So when they say something right, I acknowledge it (and even people like you that, based on their profile are usually a bit less crazy, occasionally say crazy things as above).
How far back in my comment history did you have to go to find that one lol
Sounds like you're trying to justify defending a rapist.
I am criticizing the closed garden iOS ecosystem. This has nothing to do with Andrew Tate except the fact his app was censored for being "contraversal".
"Controversial"? No - he's an asshole and horrible person.
If your think he's simply controversial then that says a lot more about you than Apple.
Apple should allow installing apps from third parties.
Apple should not let this asshole sell his app on their store.
Sigh. Your pro censorship and think those who are not are horrible. What a surprise.
Read my other comments in this thread to see why I can care less who it is. Weather it is an asshole or an angel.
*you're
*couldn't
*whether
Oh, I've read a ton of your naive "censorship is bad m'kay" takes. You think it's sheltering your argument from criticism when it's really not.
Some censorship is fine. Who is doing it, the magnitude, and why all matter. This is not a black and white issue.
Google had this removed from the play store before lmao sure you could download the APK, but that’s way less user friendly and people he’s trying to target aren’t going to
Right, Google still allows some kind of freedom by allowing you to sideload the apk, while still doing the right thing and removing this abominations their store. Win win. Apple sucks (imho).
Dunno.. this feels like the first genuinely good news I've heard apple linked with in a long while.
How is censorship good news? Yeah this is all about Andrew Tate, but that is not the point. The point is that censorship is bad and censorship can occur on centralized app stores were it is done for "politicial" reasons.
I don't care if you think Andrew Tate is evil, it is the action of banning an app because "we do not like you". That is the problem and Apple users have no choice since they are in a walled garden.
Yo, look into the tolerance paradox and get back to me
It's funny, because not only does he really not get what a sheep he is, but I've pasted the link to it on Wikipedia to him twice already. He's really trying his hardest to stay as ignorant as possible.
Ask him his opinion of tertiary education if you want a laugh :)
I'm not the person you were replying to, but here's my take.
We don't need to tolerate intolerance, but that's different than "freedom of speech". We can still refuse to tolerate intolerance while still protecting freedom (I'm purposefully ignoring the whole "inciting violence" and "pyramid scheme" that would make this illegal, not just controversial, for the sake of this argument).
Example: on Android, you can still sideload apps at your own risk, protecting freedom, while Google can still remove it from their store, and so refusing to tolerate intolerance. (wow am I really defending Google? Well I guess at least they used not to be evil).
Apple users do have a choice. Apple isn't the only game in town. If those users disagree with Apple and want Tate shit, they can use a different platform.
So much choice! The can pick Android or .. Android. Or Android.
Some censorship is good tbh.
"land of the free" my ass ... that's the world we live in ...
You can't claim to be the land of the free when your incarceration rate is the highest in the world.
Sigh
"le sigh" 🤣
I'm not justifying a racist here but I'm just here to say I like sideloading apks. Fuck Andrew Tate.
Somebody else gets it. Thanks
Then explain it better
While I would never need anything with Andrew Tate's name on it, I absolutely agree with the statement and that's why I stick with android. Upvoted.