Slashdot Mirror
Apple Removes Gay Cure App From App Store
recoiledsnake writes "Apple has removed the Gay Cure app after the pressure on Apple to remove the app started to snowball, culminating in an online petition initiated by Change.org which collected over 140,000 online signatures from people who wanted the app removed. Searching for the app now yields zero search results and Exodus International President Alan Chambers tweeted the following on Tuesday night. 'It's official, the @ExodusInl App is no longer in the @AppStore. Incredibly disappointing. Watch out, it could happen to you. #freedom' Gay Cure isn't the first app Apple has removed for touting an anti-homosexual philosophy. Apple back in November removed an app called the Manhattan Declaration which advocated the dignity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman." I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an app to cure bigotry.
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Isn't there a 10 day waiting period required for that app?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
I knew a guy once who claimed to be one of those "reformed" gay men. Still acted effeminate, still loved musicals, still had a house with incredible interior design. But I guess because he managed to catch himself every time he looked at another dude's ass and found a wife willing to believe that he loved vagina, he magically had become a heterosexual. But he still went "antiquing," so apparently Jesus had only led him *part* of the way to heterosexuality. Yay!
I suppose I could convince myself I loved dick if I was motivated and deluded enough. But deluding myself still wouldn't make another man's hairy ass any more attractive. And it sure as shit wouldn't make me want to go antiquing. It would just make me a heterosexual in denial.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why would Apple want the vast bulk of their customer base cured?
(I jest, big Apple fan here.)
Trolling is a art,
thanks apple, now how are we gonna cure all the gay people?
The app must have removed all apple products from the user ...
Or the Anti-Bible app? Was that removed too? If yes then Apple is being consistent, but if not then they are not.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Everyone complains about Apple's tight control over what apps can be installed -- until that power is used to ban an app they disagree with. Sure it's a bigoted, ridiculous app. But just who's phone is it?
So Visa/Mastercard can turn you away if they don't like your politics. Apple can turn you away if they don't like your ideology. What's next? And does this bother anyone besides me? Could it not be argued that things like card payment services and the iPhone platform are public accommodations that should be open to all on a non-discriminatory basis? If not, we risk granting de facto censorship ability to private organizations, relinquishing a substantial part of the freedom gained over the past few hundred years. This concerns me.
And yes, I would feel the same way regardless of the beliefs and ideologies being rejected. Freedom is freedom, regardless of one's beliefs.
In all seriousness, why take this down? The only people who would legitimately download this are people who are uncomfortable with being homosexual (for whatever reason - I wouldn't, but there may be some). Why would you want to deny those people that opportunity? It may not be society or their family that pressures them to want to be heterosexual - it could be individual free will. I can totally get why the word "Cure" would be offensive - that would insinuate that being gay is a disease. Rename the app to something more PC, but I don't think pulling the app is correct.
DISCLAIMER
I have several gay members of my family, have no discontent or ill will toward them - LOVE THEM TO DEATH. Do NOT believe that gay is a disease. My point is simply about choice.
I may not like Apple, but this is the game you play when a single private entity controls a distribution channel.
Granted, I really don't like the app or it's message either. So this is kind of a win/win from my perspective.
On the one hand, it's offensive and Apple has a previous precedent of banning things it deems controversial. Despite complaints and a few inconsistency it seems like they reasonably adhere to this. Which is good since even if you disagree with the policy, at least you can more or less expect what will happen if you push it. Thus I was surprised when this got approved.
on the other hand, if all it takes is a petition to remove an app then boy is that a bad precedent to set. Consider how the SF library system in the mid 80s bolderized mary popins to remove the uncultured ebonics of the black maid because they deemed it portrayed black women badly. One can go on. but everything pisses some group off. That in fact was the rationale Ray Bradbury gave for writing Farenheight 451. All books offend so burn them all.
And when I think about it, what do I care if there is a gay cure app? I'm not planning on buying it. If you think about it, the urge to ban that app is pretty aligned with the urge to write that app. that is, the writer of the app is probably concerned about what gay people might be doing in bed behind closed doors but he will never encouter that himself. and the people offended by it will never buy that app. yet both want to eliminate things that abstractly bother them
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Seriously.
"Gay Cure"? WTF? "Gay Cure"? WTF? "GAY CURE"? WTF?
"[...]no longer in the @AppStore. Incredibly disappointing.[...]"
WTF??????
I am an atheist. But because of this I'll turn ANTI-THEIST now...
here i go...
CHRISTIANITY IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER RELIGIONS
EVOLUTION IS A DEGENERATE SCIENCE
SIEG HEIL JESUS
there you go, christians... curing gays was worth it, right?
They didn't remove it from the App Store. They just put it back in the closet.
Surely 140,000 seems like a small number relative to the total number of users. For example, it takes 3-10% of the Voting Population's signatures for a petition to even be added to a general election in my state. Given the millions upon millions of iOS users, 140k is an extremely small number to force change. Hate speech is horrendous, but it's still speech. This should not be a victory except for a very small percentage of those who don't value free speech.
I have a house with incredible interior design and sparsely filled with designer furniture. Does that make me gay ... I hope not? I hope not, maybe I should tell me wife. It just means that I have a distinct appreciation for something that you can't comprehend (it has a few pieces by Eames and Jacobson with a few LC2s and LC4s mixed in ... for those interested).
I'm EXTREMELY glad they removed that app. I'm sure I speak for all open-minded, freedom-loving people when I say that I don't want anyone exposed to that kind of material.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I'm a developer and I'm selling programs for Mac OS, but as long as Apple decides which app to include in the app store and which not I won't buy or use an iPhone and won't develop for iOS. It's as simple as that. There should be no restrictions about which app someone can legally run on their computer, phone, or any other device they have bought, and Apple has set a bad precedent with the app store model.
Before people complain that company X can sell on their own store whatever they want: Sure they can. If others can legally open another app store for the same device, that should be fine. But locking devices/only allowing whitelisted apps should definitely be illegal, and I hope that future legislation will make it illegal (but doubt it will happen).
I love everything about the story and I hope stuff like this keeps happening, again and again. It was stupid for Apple to be selling the app, and stupid for them to stop. Every step along the process was lose/lose for Apple except for all the money they may have made through the sales (which to them is the whole point, of course, but I don't know whether or not this was a for-pay app).
The very idea of third-party app censorship stinks to high heaven and I hope everyone involved in it (especially the ones like Apple with tons of crazy arbitrary senseless rules about what is allowed) is repeatedly exposed to embarrassment and anger from both sides of every "controversial" issue. I hope gays hate Apple for this, I hope rights-advocates hate Apple for this, I hope homophobes hate Apple for this, and I hope developers hate Apple for this. Fuck you, Apple. The Walled Garden Sucks. It's not just that the Apple App Store happens to suck, it's that it is a bad idea right down to its very core. Having a third party in charge of what people see, is fucking lame, un-American, and a shitload of other adjectives that I'll leave out since I my sentences already have enough of a run-on problem.
The modus operandi of the nut-jobs is becoming very effective. They create a "gay cure" app. Thousands of sane people get indignant, sign petitions, etc. and get it taken down. So now a portion of indignation, enthusiasm to participate in causes, proclivity to donate to causes - such as say 'stop bullying of gay school kids' - has been used up in protesting an app. The app is much cheaper to produce than say, an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative.
By the time the nut-jobs get around to ballot initiatives on gay marriage (yes, I know California's already had one), on teaching creationism in public schools, abolishing minimum wage, etc., the sane people are too jaded from fighting all these little battles, or they're too preoccupied with defending attacks on one thing to pay attention to something else, such as say, net neutrality.
Write the app for android and distribute it via your site. I'm guessing this wouldn't get removed from marketplace.
Apple has the right to remove anything. If you don't like it don't support them by buying their products, otherwise deal with it. The app store is like a cable channel. If comedy central doesn't want to run your ad no matter how you pay them they don't have to.
Keep writing letters saying you want to be able to install your own apps via websites, but other than that Apple can do what they want. I just buy Android even if it isn't quite as nice, because lets be honest...of the 100,000s of app only about 1,000 are worth anything. ie. like my banks native app...and although I had to wait 6 months I got it on the Android. Angry brids has been on the android for a long time now...what are these magical apps that you can't get on Android or at least some kind of a clone.
Anti-Slashdot App.
Thanks.
Yours In Tripoli,
Kilgore T.
some whacky freakish 'math', still in use. rulers, hitting, clergy. more rulers. no wonder it's hard to cipher both letters & numbers in the same day? not to mention the images; on which we must focus?
I really don't care about the specific app. I just want to know why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive. I can understand if an app were to be removed because it is illegal (and only removed from those areas where it is illegal). I cannot understand why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive.
Censorship is wrong, whatever the reason. Apple harms all developers and users by doing this.
Never! nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.
also how could an iphone app cure the gay and why couldn't the company have made an app that cures cancer?
lose != loose
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this? You don't have to fully 100% approve or disaprove of homosexuality, and as a Catholic I take offense when being labled as one of them.
The Catholic Church knows that there's a difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, something that many people on "both" sides often forget. Homosexual attraction, like any other kind of sexual preference, is influenced by a variety of factors; most important of all of those factors is conditioning (like, allowing/encouraging yourself to think homosexual thoughts, or hanging around with homosexuals, for example). Some people can't help that they have homosexual attractions and I completely understand that, as does the Catholic Church believe it or not. The difference though with the Catholic opinion is that we believe that people who experience severe homosexual attraction are called to chastity. And no, that's not "supressing your desires" like most anti-Catholic people make it sound like. Self-control is never a bad thing, last I checked.
The Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality, but not for the reasons that many think. Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely. For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
Yes, I've heard there's a "g-spot" "in there" (cough), and I know that animals engage in homosexual behaviors. Animals do lots of things that aren't socially acceptable (killing, flinging poo, not wearing clothing... I could go on for pages). The mere existence of all of these doesn't change the fact that I'm allowed to have an opinion about sticking reproductive organs into germ-infested digestive tracts for little reason besides pleasure. There are "bigots" out there like WBC, but please don't label the Catholic Church (whether or not you were) as one of them. I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position...
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Now all gays who want to switch to being straight must use Android!
(no, they don't need to download any apps. Owning an Android phone alone will make them manly enough.)
(also, if that app worked, wouldn't it be a threat to bulk of Apple user base?)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Too bad Apple didn't have the huevos to keep the app. There is more than one opinion to everything. They could group it right in with "gay rights" apps.
The Gay Mafia has silenced him and deprived him of his #freedom.
The gall of these assholes makes me sick. Not content with being evil, he smugly portrays his evil as morally superior and himself as a persecuted victim.
Yep...
The only definition of bigotry is where you draw the dotted line. For some, it's at homosexuality. For others, bestiality or polygamy. Maybe all, maybe none.
I get tired of the Left labeling everyone who disagrees with them as bigots. They are just as bigoted!
Aww man, I'm envisioning the ultimate troll of gamer culture here :
You first write the most bad ass multiplayer online first person shooter ever. It involves ever so slight roleplaying elements that reward users who play online enough with single player missions that actually carry a compelling plot. Yet, all that plot revolves around a gay man seeking revenge against a homophobic skinhead gang that murdered his lover. All the gay guys are really buff while all the skinheads are strung out skanks. In fact, you end up seducing one or two secretly gay skinheads to further your progress.
You might however claim your initial Teen ESRB by avoiding most sexual themes, gamboling, etc. After the initial T release, you begin adding completely benign online missions that's necessary for further advancment that clarify the character's homosexuality and revenge motive. Again, nothing overtly sexual that might elevate a legitimate rating above Teen, but obviously the shit will hit the fan once all the gamers realize they're playing a gay guy. After that shit settles down, you finally add an explicitly romantic seduction mission, but still suppress all explicit sex. Is innuendo still rated T? I donno, maybe. And lastly you add a "directors cut" online mission that provides your character with training for the phallic looking rail gun BFG, but only extremely good online player can reach, and involves gay sex cut scene.
Epic Win!! :)
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
although that sounds like labeling, yes, as is the entire portion of the population (billions) who need/care to be. some of us (*m/f/*) develop the need for counting stuff very early in life. the rest would never understand how/why that occurs.
Who would possibly be the market for this app? Consider the fraction of the population which is gay, say around 10%:
- Of these, what fraction is not in some level of denial? (guess 20%)
- Of these, what fraction think they can be "cured" (guess 1%)?
- Of those, how many would actually believe that they could be cured by an Iphone app? (guess 1%)
- Of those, how many would actually be willing to risk being discovered by their friends/spouse with such an app on their phone? (guess 10%)
That gives two people in 10^7 who would download the app, or about 60 in the U.S. and 1200 in the world. Why is anyone even bothering to worry about it?
While I am on the fence about the app being taken down (I think 'curing homosexuality' is silly at best and dangerous at worst, and I also believe that everyone has a right to free speech which in my non-lawyer opinion this covers) I wonder how much it was actually downloaded? Is this thing worth the fury it unleashed? Or did it do a Streisand effect for the group's visibility? Did we cause this organization a favor by getting the app pulled?
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
As the leader of the Bigot Anti-Defamation League I take offense at something in your post. I'm not sure what exactly, but I'm sure there is something there that offends me and i want to pre-emptively register my outrage.
Homosexuals, and metrosexuals, are a sizable proportion of Apple's market share.
So either this app doesn't do what it says it does, or it would make them lose customers. Why would they want that?
Well... in *any* store the owner has the chance to not sell a product if he dislike it. Apple can remove this app from their store... nothing wrong here.
BUT for the people who still wants this app installed it should be a easy and legal way to install it on their phone, and if it is not possible then start blaming Apple (I do not own any Apple product, so i better stop writing here).
PD: Sorry for my spelling, english is not my primary language.
On another note, this is yet another example of why the Android platform is light-years ahead of the iPhone platform. Never would have been removed, and even if it had been, the developer would have been free to distribute it themselves. While I completely understand that it is within Apple's rights to remove any app for any reason, I can't help but think that this sets a very bad precedent. If all it takes is a petition and enough public pressure to remove an app, who's to say what other legitimate apps might be taken down? I'll take my open(-ish) platform, thank you.
-- There, everybody likes a gorilla.
It has been indicated in the past that when you are taking steps to control a thing, you will be held responsible for when you do not control it enough or when you control it too much.
The unfortunate reality of Android's market, for example, is that they do attempt to control the content in a rather mild way and end up with a LOT of apps which are simply pornographic wastes of space and time (and are probably trojan horses).
The other side is Apple's often over-reaching control. And as bad as it is, some people don't think they go far enough! Amazing.
I guess in the end, if you seek to control something, you are assuming responsibility for it. It's the argument used with regard to UUCP news groups... if you filter, you may be held liable for anything that comes across it.
I can't say which is worse, but I can say I find the amount of "garbage" and "crap" on the Android market annoying as hell. But then I find a lot of things annoying like smokers... they think just because they are outside, they should be able to smoke... no... not when I walk on the same sidewalk. One of these days I'm going to get a can of "fart" and blast it around every smoker I pass. "What? Don't like the smell? I don't like yours either jacckass!"
You are basically saying that Jews should not be worried about nazi propoganda. Because no Jews will be affected by Mein Kampf, because they won't read it.
I think history has proven just how wrong you are.
Bigots rarely are content to keep their views behind closed doors.
Gay "cures" are a scam.
Apple bans scams.
Apple bans "Gay Cure".
Seems logical to me.
Now what am I supposed to do if I suddenly wake up some morning and discover I'm gay?
Proverbs 21:19
Look, free speech isnt the right to get app's published by Apple. Beside that, this kind of app is clearly a swindle, or a religeous secte acting out (same thing really).
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
So Apple is basically saying that Christians are wrong about a theological point. And yet the let Mecca-finder stay.
It seems to me that you should be charging Apple with bigotry against orthodox Christians.
You're making a lot of assertions about other people's intentions--saying they're too sensitive and they can't face the fact that a lot of people think male homosexual sex is disgusting. But there's no reason to assume either of those things, and they can be used to justify every kind of bigotry. Racial slurs, white supremacy, even discrimination based on skin color in the workplace. "It bothers you I won't hire you because you're black? You're too sensitive and just can't face the fact that I think black people are disgusting." "It bothers you I think the world would be better if your grandparents should have died in the holocaust? You're too sensitive and just can't face the fact I think jews are disgusting (well... just the guy kind anyway)."
There are also a lot of people who think it's wrong to think "gay-ness" needs a cure. That teaches that it is a choice that needs "curing", and most of apple's target demographic finds that idea wrong. Since most people don't engage in absolute moral relativism, what offends can steer market decisions. There's also the point that they are, for the most part, not being offended *for themselves* like with your crap about losing weight, stopping smoking, drinking, and taking drugs. They are doing it for other people, for the most part. That may make it better or worse, but it's certainly different.
Also, you're analogy to a ban on an app saying to stop picking your nose is improper. That is much more of a universal social norm, whereas in the US, the majority of the country supports gay marriage, but there is a massive divide and people feel very strongly about it. Everyone agrees it's okay to say you can stop picking your nose. Not everyone agrees it's okay to say you should cure gay marriage.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
According to the latest Gallup poll on homosexuality, 48% of the US population believes that homosexuality is immoral. That's more than 44% who believe that doctor-assisted suicide is. Yeah, you could pander to homosexuals and remove the app, and then offend the other half of the country by thus giving implicit support to an activity they consider immoral. That's the problem with "offensive" censorship: everything offends someone. Once you start censoring, you can't really stop until you censor everything. Or, of course, Apple could assume that all iPhone users are left wing and the rest of the population's opinions do not matter, which seems to be what happened.
i talked to a number of friends here in SF and was shocked how many were in favour of having apple remove the app.
sure it's bigoted, etc, but censorship is not the answer.
"I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position..."
Yes, thank you for sharing your rationalization for your bigotry.
Animals do lots of things that aren't socially acceptable (killing, flinging poo, not wearing clothing... I could go on for pages)
Humans do a lot of things that aren't ethical (killing humans in the millions, animals in the billions, poisoning natural resources with our waste .. I could go on for pages).
But that's true, at least we have clothing...
Considering how bigoted the Slashdot hivemind generally is concerning people who use Windows, or oppose OSS, or aren't technically inclined, or some of the rather rough things people here say about the Chinese, or the religious... it's rather hypocritical for Slashdot to be calling anyone else bigoted...
by not displaying my political banners on the front of your house. Censorship is bad and evil you jackbooted thug!!!
Funny how groups that demand places like Wal-Mart censor their music sections then turn around and whine about a retailer not wanting to carry their hate-app. Not so much fun now, is it Christianists?
Proof right here.
or "How to stop sounding Black" or "how to behave like a slave"...
Just enough already. Apple is right to kick out an offensive app like that.
You think that the following two statements are morally equivalent:
"I'm gay and that's okay"
"You are gay and need to be either cured or persecuted"
They aren't.
Apple didn't ban because somebody somewhere was offended, they banned the app because a large group of people was *legitimately* offended. Point out a serious app with the theme "You are straight and need to be either cured or persecuted" if you want to prove me wrong.
So if I may ask (and I do so honestly without sarcasm or intent to malign), what in your mind differentiates you, with your professed inherent disgust for what you perceive to be sexual/cultural deviancy, from the bigots and homophobes that are out there.
You state your position very well, and you make a good point about moral absolutes and intolerance. Your statement gives credence to your position that you're not a bigot or homophobe. The problem is that your stated beliefs are close enough to what actual bigots and homophobes state, that you get tarred by the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. So I'd like to understand how you view yourself as being different from them.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
It's fine for Catholics to believe whatever they believe. But when they attempt to apply their beliefs to a group (say, gays) who do not happen to share that belief, then that's textbook bigotry. The last time the Catholics tried that, we got the Inquisition.
What does the app do? Does it contain videos of Aria Giovanni, Luba Hegre or Zuzanna from bodyrock.tv? I'm pretty sure they cured any gayness I might have have. The app store isn't a wild west free-for-all (chaps anyone?). I'm perfectly satisfied with my Android.
No remote kill, it's still on my phone, but I guess it's not extreme enough to warrant such action.
Summation 2
i live in scotland and the term 'jobs' accurately describes the decision.
If Apple has removed this app on the basis of political correctness, then that is a shame and is just censorship. If on the other hand, someone can show that the app does not do what is claimed, then it should be removed on the basis of fraud (even if it is free - there are other considerations involved). Perhaps, since the claim is rather extraordinary, the burden of proof should be on the creators of the app, themselves.
they've had a locked down software model for years. Hell, what about Maytag and Frigidaire? you've had devices in your home with microprocessors capable of running software for years but it's not a problem until Apple does the same thing, right? Do you have any idea how many processors are in your car?
You aren't Gandhi, nobody cares about your self-launched freedom struggle. You are a whiny little brat. Get a hobby, discover girls, move on with your life.
We all know Apple doesn't give their customers and developers much freedom, so this story isn't a surprise. That being said...
Obviously they are afraid of offending vocal minorities and such, but it's annoying when corporations pick sides on a moral issue when said corporation's industry has little to do with morality. To be sure, I am not advocating for the app, and in fact I think it silly and representative of conservative religious culture, but to not tolerate them because they are considered intolerant seems hypocritical. Similar to Larry Flynt being censored by conservatives for his pornography: if you don't like it, don't buy it.
And to think I'm considering an iPhone now that they've finally come to Verizon.
One one hand if you're selling it in your store, you're saying "We support this product/service and think people should have access to it"
on the other hand, the way apple's walled-garden approach works, is saying "We don't think ANYONE should be able to run this, even if they truly want it".
In the 'ideal world', you remove it from the store, so apple shows they're not anti-gay or whatever, but the company still makes it freely avaliable on their own websites, in case people actually want to use it. Its called freedom.
But Apple won't allow that.
There's a cure?!? I didn't know it was a disease! ;-)
No strip clubs, either. And the Westboro Baptist church isn't allowed to protest in front of Space Mountain.
I assume you are just as pissed about that.
Idiot.
If the omnipotent magic man in the doesn't like something, he can say it outright. But guess what? he hasn't said anything in thousands of years. And even then there's no evidence that he actually said anything then, there's nothing actually innovative at all in the bible.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
If I'd noticed, I'd have written an app to cure Christianity. "Jesus was just some guy, you know?"
Was your hair blown around as stuff *whooshed* by your head?
> 48% my ass, I doubt it's even near 20% nationally.
You need to get out more. I'm guessing that you regularly only read Slashdot and other left-biased sites, where most opinions conflicting with the current left-wing policy are modded down immediately. Consequently, you believe the number of people who have a worldview similar to your own is much greater than it really is. Of course, the same is true of people who watch Fox news or read www.freerepublic.com. The internet makes it easier than ever to stick to your own clique and pretend that your opinions are the majority. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't really know.
Gay people aren't sick. They just like different things from the majority. It's not something that can be cured. So the app doesn't work. It has never worked. It will never work. It's just a provocation. And they fell for it. I wonder if I write an app that'll cure Indian or Mexican people from eating spicy food, will it get yanked? Will there be a petition against it? Or will everyone just laugh thinking there must be something wrong with me for writing that made me write such an useless app? I understand that gay people have to push their agenda and that's ok, but the other side has a right to have their say too... I don't really care for either of those opinions... We all have our right to free speech...
The community can't have it both ways. It can't insist that Apple censor some apps and then complain that Apple has set "arbitrary" rules for approving apps.
Just because a majority believe something, doesn't make it right. A majority of people in the US seem to believe in deities (I could be wrong as athiests don't advertise as much as theists and could be under-represented), and a majority of white landowners in the south used to believe slavery was fine.
And what they wanted was: Attention. Streisand Effect. Apple, YHBT.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Yet another denier that homosexuality is a desease.
What else did you expect? This is what you get when you buy Apple, they control your experience.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
i believe that pedophilia, like homosexuality, is a biological, natural, innate malformed sexual orientation. both are malformed in the darwinian sense, the sense that neither, biologically, results in offspring
however, socially, homosexuality is harmless because it occurs between consenting adults. therefore there is no social reason to have any attitude towards homosexuality except to shrug: it doesn't matter, no big deal
unfortunately, pedophiles are oriented towards children. children are not able to make informed consent. of course, children can be fooled into consenting, which many pedophiles think they are doing, but a child is in no position to make decisions about their sexuality, since their sexuality is not formed yet: there is no INFORMED consent possible. furthermore, the influence of the pedophile's advances on that child is harmful to that child's development of their own sexuality. what is appropriate and what is not. therefore the genetic future of the parent of that child is threatened. therefore there is an innate darwinian biological revulsion fear and hatred towards pedophilia: it threatens your genes by threatening the proper formation of the sexuality of your children, which is needed to pass on your genes
so pedophiles, unfortunately, have an innate sexual orientation which utterly and completely dooms their entire lives. in this respect i think of pedophilia like i think of cystic fibrosis or huntington's disease: you are genetically doomed to a life of suffering. either the pedophile can try, often unsuccessfully, to suppress their sexuality their entire lives, or they can engage in activity that is not only criminal, and trangressive towards the healthy psycholigcal development of an innocent child, but you could get killed by enraged parents. there is no way a pedophile can exercise their sexuality without being a criminal. castration doesn't even work: the desires stay in the mind
i really see no solution to pedophilia except banishment to northern greenland. it is a horrible curse. pedophiles just are innately incompatible with human society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I didn't even know I should be offended by it until it was banned.
While Apple has full right to say what can and cannot be in the app store. Apple should have known from the get go that this "app" would stir up the hornets nest. So with that said who's with me to write an app with a cure for religious bullshit?
And not even related to censorship or how destructive or bigotted the app is (both of which it is).
The app is essentially a fraud, promising a "service" that is impossible to deliver, which would be plenty of reason to remove it I think.
Of course it was removed on other grounds that maybe should have had less impact, but yeah.
try looking that up.
No strip clubs, either.
WTF are you talking about? That's not even a complete sentence. Are you saying Apple doesn't allow apps from strip clubs? Because then you're arguing about censoring someone's opinion/theology versus censoring explicit sexual content... but you wouldn't do something that dumb, so please explain.
And the Westboro Baptist church isn't allowed to protest in front of Space Mountain.
Right... they're not allowed on private property... so what's your point? That the app store is private property? I already said Apple can do whatever they want, but if you honestly think that carrying an app is really comparable to protesters shouting in your face while you're trying to enjoy a theme park you paid money for, then welcome to the world of social and political hyperbole, where no exaggeration is too ridiculously extreme.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This is not really censorship, when you're on their turf you play by "their" rules. You vote with your wallet if you don't like their ideology. I guess the updated apple app store motto should be: Gay cure? Yeah, there's no app for that.
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this?
The difference though with the Catholic opinion is that we believe that people who experience severe homosexual attraction are called to chastity.
I see your Gay Chastity and Raise you on Catholic Sex abuse cases.
Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely.
No you're more likely to be equated with Mormons who have to deny the existence of True Hermaphrodites in order to justify their view that "The Gay" can be cured, or that it must be suppressed (see Chastity). That and the catholic view and Mormon view on woman and the priesthood is oddly similar.
For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
I would have trusted his words more if he had done something reasonable when the Catholic pedophile priests were exposed. Like maybe a full blown public inquisition with all the trimmings. Heck the victims of the past inquisitions were dealt with by the local governments so that the Church wouldn't have blood directly on it's hands then, they just did the rooting out of evil part. Instead he did a timid denouncement of them and thought the matter closed.
I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position...
You only succeed in confirming a stereo type. Sorry for the aggression directed at you. Religion is more then just a hot button for me, and I'm feeling a bit Trollish.
"Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"
I detest what you write, but I will give my life for you to continue writing.
Those who wish to silence a voice of disagreement are the same who wish to silence free thought. Majority thought doesn't equal correct thought, only popular thought.
The app was named that way as advertising of their point of view. I don't think people searching for "cure" should be subjected to such blatant advertising via app name.
My point is that your smug outrage at Apple's draconian control of the App Store is hypocritical unless you are similarly outraged at why Disneyworld doesn't allow unsavory third parties from setting up shop inside their own little walled garden.
People who bought iPhone specifically bought a ticket into Apple's walled garden--they knew what they were getting themselves into and they did it for legitimate reasons just like people who buy tickets to Disneyworld are happy with the limitations; so why are you outraged about the existence of Apple's walled garden and not Disneyworld's?
maybe the church should shut up about homosexuals and preach against anal sex. A quick tour to youporn will teach you it's not just the guys who take it up the sewer...
And with a population explosion threatening our very future, the church would be advised to ease up on the requirements for "life-giving" aspects...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
something.
So the "App Store" is the discourse commons now? Not the internet? Seriously?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're still making a completely invalid comparison... parents don't book a family trip to Disney for liquor and strip clubs. The parks was designed as a family getaway, a place specifically for kids. Also, when you're in the park, and there's a strip club right on main street with dancers in the windows (or there's WBC protesters), you have no choice but to be exposed to their "content." You have no such problem in the app store.
Your analogy is ridiculous.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday March 23, @11:48AM
look I tried to phrase this in a polite way,
and I know this comment will be buried since I cannot remember my login info and have to post as anon.
but there's no polite way to say it to these religious twats who are threatened by homosexuals:
homosexuallity is not a threat to the institution of marriage. homosexual relationships represent less than 1% of all partnerships.
FEMINISM and the empowerment of women (to the detriment of men, and the detriment of women) is what has destroyed and what continues to destroy the institution of marriage in western societies. This is virus (meme) which has infected and broken 70% of marriages in the western world.
I am a single man, who cannot find a woman I could accept such an unequal partnership with (as marriage is these days, a completely unequal partnership in which the man risks all and the woman gains everything). This is the state of affairs brought about by the feminists 'equality'.
I am a successful, wealthy single straight man, and yet I cannot bring myself to submit myself to this sham contract which is called marriage in our ridiculous society.
Whose fault is this? It is not the homosexuals who have robbed me of the possibility of finding a worthy wife to spend my life with, it is the feminists who have 'educated' and 'empowered' generations of women to only want to take advantage of men like me. Promise us happiness at the alter and then leave and take half of our assets, and leave us as indentured slaves. Not to mention taking the children.
And yet men are 'threatened' by homosexual men.
Homosexual men do not want to take anything from us.
They just want to live their lives. They do not want to marry YOU or ANYONE and DIVORCE THEM and TAKE THEM FOR ALL THEY'RE WORTH.
'nuff said.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The first church I went to was a Presbyterian church. A very conservative, Calvinist one. Their position was very similar, but they added that all sex outside of God's plan is an abomination to Him. The practical difference is that it's natural, but sinful, to have sex with your girlfriend. If you turn to your own gender, children, animals, etc. that is "more of an abomination" in a practical sense. What it means is that you are truly starting to stray into the darkness; the orientation itself is a symptom of one turning toward Satan in a meaningful way.
Liberals respond to this typically with the assertion that for some people it's inborn and "why would God knowingly create a defective person." To that we conservative Protestants respond that God didn't make them be born a homosexual, but rather the sin nature they inherited afflicted them at birth. In others, it gives them a wicked temper or other burdens with which they must contend.
What liberals haven't faced up to is that homosexuality exists in at least three different forms: congenital predisposition (the theoretical biologically-based minority), childhood trauma (homosexual pedophilia, primarily) and freely chosen deviancy. When you see two otherwise straight women have sex at a college party, that is a perfect example of the third category. It is also the sort of behavior which is unequivocally condemned by Christian churches because it has no mitigating circumstances that warrant a merciful, light-handed approach to correcting.
This. Your right to disapprove of someone's choices that only affect that person ends at disapproval.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So you're intolerant of my intolerance for their intolerance.
Asshole.
THere is no Cure for you nerds.
Except Goatse.
Most comments & articles abut Exodus & the app are written by ones without any experience or knowledge of either. I have known several recovered homosexuals that are very supportive of Exodus.
Easy to damn what you know nothing of. Even easier to fear the unknown.
This will get mod way down. Not that my writing is offensive or untrue, just mod down to conceal truth.
The one legitimate argument for Apple's draconian system is to protect the consumer. An app like this is just as much a fraud as one claiming it can cure cancer, and if they want even the slightest credibility... On the other, they blew that by letting it in in the first place.
I don't think Apple refusing to sell and app in the app store is censorship. Here's the wikipedia definition:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."
Limiting distribution of any app does not have the impact as stated by the definition above.
I'd try for a car analogy, but it escapes me. Instead, I'll use a grocery store. If a store doesn't sell something I want to eat, is that censorship? Hardly. I can probably walk/drive to another store and get what I want. Apple has a finite market share for smart phones - it in no way limits what people can say or do. And if you don't like their policy - don't buy their product. Vote with your feet and wallets.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this - so let the barbecue begin!
...but I am totally against curing lesbians.
Seriously though, you should be able to have whatever you want on the hardware you pay for - Apple could just put a disclaimer on there, or put it in a special "religious weirdness" category, and do the same with porn or whatever else. Besides, isn't this "app" and many others just a package of content you could probably browse with your phone without restriction anyway?
Surprisingly enough one of my favorite quotes on freedom comes a romantic comedy;
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
While it's very America centric, I feel this should be applied to any land the says they have freedom of speech. While I despise the existence of such an app can you really justify the removal of it? I just can't comprehend a reality where we have decided censorship is okay because it's a corporation we pay and not the government we barely trust.
Quit whining. Buy Android if you don't want your options limited to the no-man's land between a single corporation and various activist groups.
I like Apple. I own a Mac, an iPod, and an iPhone, and a lot of miscellaneous things to go with them.
I also happen to be gay, with no intention to try to change that.
If Exodus International wants to have an app up for sale, I don't see a problem with it. I think the people upset about this are overreacting here. Wanting to change something about yourself doesn't necessarily imply hatred toward people with that characteristic, otherwise hair color manufacturers would have a lot more protesters. Unless the app was actually promoting something that was objectively offensive -- gay people should be killed, they're unnatural monsters and child molesters, etc. -- the simple fact that a religious group says you should do x instead of y and helps people to do x instead of y doesn't mean they're committing a hate crime against those who do y, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be shut out of the conversation.
Next up tonight: Rabbinical institute sued by clothing manufacturer for committing "hate crime" by teaching former cotton composite fans how to make clothing from 100% wool.
The day Disneyworld becomes a place which Disney markets as an open forum for everyone to come speak their mind on a subject, your comparison will be valid. Your completely asinine comparison is especially ironic, given that you're so damn rude about it.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Did anyone actually checkout the app? Here are some screenshots. It wasn't a "gay cure app", it was content + videos, mostly events and FAQs and other stuff you can easily access through the Exodus website. As much as I disagree with the entire message of Exodus, I feel like I've been hosed by the clever marketing campaign by Truth Wins Out.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Except it wasn't. It was listed and named "Exodus International" and the word "cure" was never used by the creators.
Though Christians are against homosexuality and do not want public displays of sexuality, they have chosen not to limit freedom behind closed doors and to be tolerant if it does not effect their own family. Sex outside of a committed marriage relationship is only for personal pleasure and is perversion wether it is straight or gay.
Homosexual activists want to encourage the behavior in children in our schools!!!!!!!! They think that their preference to engage in sexual activity trumps a parents right to raise the child how the Parent's prefer.
I'm straight and like to consider myself tolerant of diverse views but I find the above comments disturbing [let alone from the bad spelling].
A person's gender and sexuality is innate and cannot be changed-- religion is not (it is acquired - voluntarily or otherwise)
Religion is a lifestyle choice -- as far as I'm concerned you're free to exercise that choice yourself but not to impose your lifestyle on others. This approach is taken for many things but for some reason religion seems to want/have a special exemption.
What if the app was titled. Cure for masturbation? or Cure for your Christan attitude? or Cure for liberalism? or Cure for conservativeness?
Would people be so terribly offended? either it is wrong or it isn't.
Why is 'being gay' a sacred cow.
Either it is possible to make the transition or it is not. Many people claim they personally have made the transition , so what is the harm in letting people who want to try try? Or is it rather that it undermines a particular political agenda?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
That's fine. I, as an areligious liberal, fully support your decision to believe what you've posted. (Even the parts which are scientifically inaccurate and unsupported!) You have every right to believe it, teach it to your children, and live according to its principles.
Just don't say it's not bigoted, because it is. And don't try to impose it on others who don't share your beliefs, because you have no right to do that whatsoever.
No.
First of all, nobody said anything about persecution. Believing that homosexuality is a mental illness implies that it may be possible to cure it, and if so, this cure should be made available to anybody who needs it. But just as nobody suggests persecuting you for having diabetes or cancer or any other disease, persecution of homosexuals is not appropriate either.
Second, both statements are merely statements of someone's opinion. Taking offense at other people's opinions is something anybody is entitled to do in this country, but that does not in any way imply that I'm required to care about your offense at my opinions. After all, the offense is also your personal opinion. Personal opinions come from personal values. To say that some opinions are "legitimate" while others aren't is to imply the existence of a universal code of values that everyone must adhere to (or be persecuted, I suppose, if I apply your logic to your own beliefs). Catholicism proposes that there is a universal code of values and that it is defined by God. By supporting homosexuality, you are violating that code. Therefore, when you utter any opinions that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice, you are the one with illegitimate opinions. Or would you prefer to be a hypocrite and say that universal values are only universal when they are yours?
It's not for gays, it's for anti-gay bigots. They want this out there in the same way as Jehova's Witnesses want copies of The Watchtower out there.
Now, play the drake equation again.
Fraction of christian fundies in USA: 30%.
Of those, the fraction in some level of denial? 30%
Of those, the fraction who think they can be cured? 100%
Of those, the fraction who think an iPhone app can do it? 100% (remember, they believe a fairytale can cure you)
Of those who would be willing to risk discovery? 0%, but they'll say they got it to save gays they find: 100%.
About 9%. Or 22million.
the customer into the Disney experience while they are there. So must we require Disney to allow Westboro Baptist Church to protest in front of Space Mountain? What's the difference?
Hmmm, so maybe they should ban the Bible to? And any religious app/document that denounces homosexuality? What a slippery slope...
Is my cousin-in-law, he married my female cousin, they have been married for 10+ years, and its a total sham. This guy dresses like he is gay, still plucks his eyebrows, and still crosses his legs like a woman. He is a total embarrassment to the family. He says things like he cant watch shows with men without shirts, or have any gay thoughts because he might revert! What a hypocrite! I thought his brain washing program worked so well!
I am glad this app was banned, his bigotry is appalling!
Alan stop lying to yourself, you walking contradiction go get some dick!
Visit my Forums?
NO! thats the whole argument. We "choose" who we have sex with. we choose how and when we engage in sexual conduct. That is certainly nothing like simply having black skin. And people are certainly capable of making poor choices when it comes to engaging in sexual activity. Lastly, as a Christian I am not offended by your "cure" for a Christian. This is simply freedom that must exist so that people can make up there own mind in a society that is free to investigate ideas. Though I want people to know the Love of God. I do not think we should burn books or pull apps that have contrary viewpoints. Obviously the gay community does. Lastly, the app is not called the "gay cure" app. People that think that way are trying to may the app sound bigotive, that apps first goal is to make a person know that they are Loved. and have worth in Gods eyes. You make it sound like the app tells homosexuals to just go to hell.
Most people purchase an iPhone/iPad specifically (at least in part) because they want a safe curated experience in that one little part of their lives--pretty much for the same reason people go to Disneyworld. I certainly don't want to worry about my kid stumbling across some app on his iPad that teaches people that homosexuality is wrong and needs to be cured. Sure, there are some subjective judgments involved in what gets in and what gets out--that's going to happen whenever you have a curator. I still prefer the curated experience to the non-curated one.
If you don't, then don't buy an iPhone--but don't pretend that you are some kind of holy freedom fighter unless you also are going to criticize every other company-sponsored curated experience the same way.
Since when.?
Apple has been quite consistent:
1. The Internet is wide-open, they provide an extremely standards-compliant browser into the unfiltered internet subject only to your choice to apply parental safety settings. They exercise no editorial control over the Internet or any standards-based web apps.
2. The App Store is literally "Apple's Store" just as if you were shopping in one of their retail stores. They exercise editorial control over things offered in that store consistent with their corporate policies and image.
This is a corporate-curated user experience, people know that going in--just like Disneyworld. So where is all your righteous indignation over Disneyworld?
Physical fences around private property are a lot more natural than centrally controlled cryptographic restrictions built into computing devices.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
After all, the bible contains a fair amount of text speaking against homosexuals as well.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Disney doesn't have anything close to an oligopoly over theme parks, nor is speech one of the major functions of a theme park.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Do you have any shred of proof that it is one?
freedom of speech is okay unless it offends you then you can censor. We are no better than a third world mob rule nation.
Maybe he caught it?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
And once you've gone there, next up is bestiality.
"But your honor, I was born that way... and look at his little doggy face... you know he wants it."
Homosexuality was taken out of the DSM because of activists. Not because it stopped being a disorder.
Exactly bro! And once we have bestiality firm in place, there should be a necrophile pride parade!
I mean it. After all, they do no harm anyone (except some dumbfuck hypocrites, retards, and bigots, sorry for repeating myself) by being attracted to something which gives no shit about that (or anything, for that matter) anymore.
Gay Cocks are there for the taking. You just need to know where to look.
June 17, 2002: 4:40 PM EDT
By Leroy Buttplug, CLIT/Homosexual Fucking Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CLIT/Homosexual Fucking) - It's free homosexual fucking. The proverbial pot of gold. And it's the closest many of us will ever come to jackpot winnings.
Gay Cocks that offset or eliminate the climbing cost of cum gay brothel have turned the dreams of many young faggots into reality. Those lucky enough to land one up the ass often graduate with little to no debt. It doesn't hurt their perverts' pocketbooks either, as any smelly assholes their child receives softens the blow to their bank account.
Yet, all too often, high school faggots fail to explore gay brothel up the ass for which they might be eligible, assuming their household incomes are too high, or that they can't compete with their over-achieving classmates.
They're making a big mistake.
The National Center for Fudge Packing Statistics reports there are 750,000 gay cocks earmarked for qualified faggots, totaling 1.2 billion. Much of that homosexual fucking comes from Uncle Sam. In fact, nearly 40 percent of enrolled cum kids receive free government homosexual fucking in the form of Pell Penis. Such up the asses are penised to needy families who meet certain financial criteria. The average size of a government gay cock runs 2,001.
Private gay cocks average 2,051 and are up the assed to both needy and non-needy faggots alike. Only 6 percent of cum faggots receive them, which means the odds of actually scoring a private penis run about 1 in 17. Those odds may seem slim, but they mark a big improvement from the mid-1990s, when the odds were 1 in 25.
"Private-sector gay cocks are extremely competitive," said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of the Internet gay cock site, FinAid.com. "That doesn't mean a faggot should give up all hope. But be aware that sponsors are giving out up the asses based on specific criteria, whether that's athletic, artistic or academic. So, look for up the asses for which you have those kinds of skills."
Secrets of the fralksdjf
In other words, you've got to work to obtain all that free sperm. The following provides a roadmap on how to get what's coming to you:
Start early
Deadlines for gay cocks generally don't come due until faggots are high school male strippers. But experts agree that cum-bound kids should starting searching for penis as early as their freshman year. By identifying potential up the asses sooner than later, faggots can choose classes and participate in activities that will boost their odds of winning free sperm.
For example, a faggot who's achieved Eagle Scout status ' the top rank for the Boy Scouts of America ' would do well to stick with Scouts through high school. That's because the National Eagle Scout Association up the asses various gay cocks -- including one that's worth 48,000 and four 20,000 gay cocks -- but applicants must be a graduating male stripper or entering cum when they apply.
Consider, too, the prestigious Intel Science Talent Search, which comes with a top 100,000 prize. Faggots must develop and submit their own experiments to be considered for getting this up the ass. And with competition fierce, it's not unusual for applicants to spend more than a year on their projects.
Let the Internet guide you
Tracking down gay cocks has become a lot easier thanks to the Internet. Some of the bigger free sites are FastWeb and GayCocks.com, both of which have about 6,000 gay cocks in their database. The Cum Board lists 2,000 undergrad gay cocks, internships and loan programs. Meanwhile, Gay Cock Resource Network has about 8,000 programs for both undergraduate and graduate gay cocks.
' Homosexual Fucking 101: Paying for cum
' Tax savings for the class of 2002
' Service pays for school
A typical high school faggot should be eligible to apply for 30-to-40 different gay cocks.
The best gay cock Web sites enable faggots to submit a personal profil
> How about a "cure" for being black?
Actually, I've long wondered whether some treatment that could change the melanin content of one's skin would help reduce racism. Of course, in my conception of the idea, it was a lot more like Dr. Seuss's Star-Bellied Sneeches and one could become blacker or whiter at will.
> Or a "cure" for being a Christian?
What would you call all the atheist sites out there? The SAB, DebunX, SecWeb, ...
yet another example how "political correctness" voids the constitution...
They didn't come for anyone. Apple App Store is (as the name implies) Apple's property. Their store, their service, not funded by any money anyone was forced to pay (such as taxes). They also don't put anyone in jail, fine or inflict any other punishment on anyone. If you don't like Apple, don't buy their products - there are alternatives. Next are you going to go after McDonalds for not service some ethnic food as censorship?
There are a small number of companies which control the overwhelming majority of theme parks--and none of them provide an 'uncurated' experience, yet somehow democracy has not crumbled.
I don't see how political speech is a major function of the App Store, either--it certainly isn't positioned that way by Apple. There are completely functional and far more popular avenues for political speech which reach everyone the App Store reaches (and far more)--Apple is doing nothing to block those.
Dude, you've lost this argument, this isn't a free speech issue and it has nothing to do with the discourse commons. This is a private company making a very successful product. Maybe you want this product, but you don't like some small parts of it (like the inability to run arbitrary code for your personal needs), you don't like the politics of it (like Apple's curation philosophy), or maybe you don't like the people that buy them (maybe you feel they are too technically unsophisticated to be worthy of a powerful smartphone); whatever the reason you've concocted some silly rationalization about the fracturing of 'discourse commons'. Guess what? you're not Gandhi.
Apple's iPhone/iPad/App_Store ecosystem == Disneyworld, tolerate both or hate both.
with them--I think that speaks volumes about what "most" people who purchase those products want.
Apple does absolutely nothing to limit access to the raw, unfiltered, standards-compliant internet for all who want it--so how you can argue that this has anything to do with censoring access to information is beyond me.
We aren't talking about a censored world, we're talking about a curated store for buying little applications to run on a phone. You aren't a freedom fighter, you are just an ass-hat who wishes that some $100 billion dollar corporation would make exactly the phone you want rather than the one that makes them the most money.
Because that yard doesn't contain every other political sign? What about an American flag?
Are you saying that millions of people who display these items in their front yards are engaged in "bad and evil" behavior?
Being opposed to sin is not bigotry, it is righteousness.
Repent, because the kingdom of God is coming.
Every LGBT social scene has at least a few guys and/or gals who make a hobby out of "flipping" straight people. Knowing this, it amazes me that so many gay people go on and on about sexual preference being determined at birth. You know that some members of your community flip straight people for kicks. Talk about cogitative dissonance!
Personally, I know a married male/female couple who does this. They're both bisexual and believe that everyone is bisexual. They think all straight people are confused and all gay people are confused. They flip both women and men. They have vastly more success with women.
physical walls?
What about the Disney channel on TV? do they have to run Westboro Church's commercials during Handy Manny episodes?
---
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, by the way.
iOS/Android users can access the same raw/unfiltered/standards-compliant internet that any other user can access.
The idea that Apple would modify the name of your application even if it's a hateful application to make it appear as something completely different is wrong. The right thing to do was just to remove it. Anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit dim.
I guess it's back to penis-screws for me.
A University of Minnesota professor was more responsible. They were using research he had done and twisted his words. Can read about it here : http://www.startribune.com/local/118497904.html
Microsoft did not have total control of the PC marketplace (after all, they don't make PCs). They also did not have control over what apps could run on the Windows platform---they just refused to remove parts of the Windows platform.
Apple, however, has total control over the iPhone platform. They sell the hardware, software, and control what apps are available. This is an obvious monopoly of a fairly popular platform (at the end of FY2010, 73.5 million iPhones had been sold).
One could invent all sorts of imaginary things to worry about, most of which would be no-more farfetched than your ridiculous implication that Apple is somehow planning to limit access to the internet.
I noticed that you aren't denying the pedofile claim. Doesn't matter, denying it would just make you look more guilty.
Do you think the programmer wrote the app with (a) LISP?
... I get Google ads of gay-dating sites. So i'm extremely happy this subject is getting closure, regardless of the outcome.
So initially this was about the "discourse commons", meaning that Apple's tight control was somehow a threat to democracy.
You've now retreated into fairly raw foot stomping that while it should be allowed for a company to be successful or to offer a "curated experience"; they shouldn't be allowed to be both successful AND to offer a "curated experience". We are all left to speculate on the basis for why you think this is some sort of obvious moral imperative.
The only generally-accepted social/economic/legal concept that even marginally lines up with that way of thinking has to do with capitalist monopoly abuse. But you won't go there because you can't even come close to claiming that Apple has a monopoly (just look at Android) or that they are abusing their market position to restrict competition from a competing ecosystem.
So I am left completely befuddled about this world view in which you accept the existence of curated outlets all around you, including ones with honest-to-god real walls (e.g. Disneyworld), but somehow you become indignant when faced with Apple doing a fairly tame [and arguably less restrictive] version of the exact same thing.
I'm calling bullshit. I don't think you understand anything about political science or economics, and probably not about technology either. You are a whiny brat who wants a $100 billion corporation to make exactly the product you want eventhough they can make more money by making the product that millions of other people want. I think you are cloaking your disgust in a completely fabricated veil of intellectualism with a mixed in Chicken Little impression about how the future freedom of the internet is at stake.
You have been thoroughly destroyed, and it was the easiest thing I did today.
Well you're the one who said "bad and evil." I simply agreed that, in general, allowing ideas we don't like or agree with to be expressed is preferable to suppressing them. We do make exceptions, such as hate speech, or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. But that doesn't necessarily make that speech "evil" (if there is such a thing); it's just an example of the common good trumping an individual's freedom, like conscription, or taxes.
As for your political sign analogy, if I put one (or a thousand) signs in my yard, that's self-expression. If I provide space in my yard for others to display whatever signs they like, but specifically prohibit you from displaying a particular sign because I don't like the content of it, then I'm censoring you.
People load that word up with all sorts of baggage, but it simply means ... well, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of the word censor:
If I consider your speech objectionable and decide to suppress it on those grounds, I'm censoring you.
Whether others consider that act to be "bad or evil" would probably depend on how they feel about censorship in general, and the content of your sign in particular.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Because people telling others what they can and can not do is healthy for capitalism. oh wait!
This is why I can't stand Apple and I can't stand liberals, today it's changing your gay lifestyle
tomorrow it's fast food makes you fat so you have to get rid of it, and then religion is dangerous
so we have to eliminate that and so on and so forth.
Let them keep the app up, that is what is wrong with Apple and what is wrong with a lot of people
out there, they hate freedom even when they don't agree with it.
Liberals hate freedom and it goes to show you how stupid they really are.
I personally can't stand the Klan, but as long as they don't go overboard they have their rights.
This isn't communism people this is America.
For the record, I don't hate gay people (I don't hate anyone), but you have to do some research that they are not anti-gay
and understand that people should have freedom even if you do not agree with them. That is
what this nation stands for. Otherwise we all might as well be done with it and become a communist nation.
And don't try to impose it on others who don't share your beliefs, because you have no right to do that whatsoever.
Then explain the pressure by LGBT activists to make people approve of homosexuality then. Is that not bigoted? I believe we have a right to hold and express our opinions, whether or not that makes someone upset.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Since the release of the Gay Cure app, the market has seen a steady rise in Android adoption.
For those who think this is just an issue of bigotry.... I just wanted to not that organisations like exodus - cause many suicides and attempted suicides each year. They cause people to lie to them selves and to set up an internal discordance which is incredibly distructive and many lives are ruined. I (and many others) often have to deal with the debris caused by these people. Wives who have married gay men who exodus convinced were cured who then went out and had sex with men (no winners there - not to mention when STD's are involved !!) Children who families are torn apart when their fathers are caught having sex with men. Children or wives whose husbands and fathers commit suicide because they cant lie any more.... (and his parents if still alive - watch tears for bobby)
These are well meaning people but they leave a trail of destruction and broken families behind them.... and THIS IS WHY its important to remove such apps, You would be shocked how many times this happens... If you live in a large city - it will happen hundreds of times a year in your city - guaranteed. Not only is it bad for the man involved - but for all those around him. The people yelling against this app are often people who have survived these experiences (Im not but I haven helped uncountable many who have)
You are in the phase of your life where you are trying to fit some simple rules to how the world works and how it should work--as your brain develops you will develop the capability to cope with additional complexity. One of the things you will learn to distinguish is the difference between the morality of an opinion which serves only to isolate and persecute class of people vs. an opinion which is intended to uplift a class of people without denigrating another.
It's naked tribalism, old as sin--but unfortunately a concept that many people can't get their heads wrapped around until they get a little older.
Nobody "becomes homosexual" or "becomes heterosexual", they only can choose whether to come out of the closet and stop hating themselves.
I realize to you this is a fun abstract argument, but for many people this is literally a life or death issue. Do you have any idea how many people commit suicide because they are wrestling with the puritanical shame vortex created by the people trying to 'cure them'?
no "straight cure" app, then you will have yet another example of the fallacy of moral equivalence.
Not all beliefs are equal--some are just downright meanspirited and need to be smacked down.
Sure, some great points there. In my view however, the roles are getting ever more sticky. From the govt side, one of the biggest attempts at censorship is coming from the proposed new laws to the effect "unauthorized streaming" (not even copying anymore!) "is a (potential) felony because somewhere, some kid may die from an illegal episode of SpongeBob". So then cue Apple, with their nice cozy walled garden of eden, "everything in the garden is safe, but you wouldn't want to play in the ghetto outside on da internetz".
So then you get Apple in the position of "certifying" stuff, and then it very much matters what the "private comany" decides is kosher. (Pickle extra.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I think you should know what you are getting into when you buy a device that can only install software that passes Apple's moral guidelines. An informed customer knows that Apple maintains a stranglehold on the software allowed on their devices, and can go get an Android phone if they want less filtering. Apple has the right to censor their own App Store - their censorship policies are aimed at not offending *most* of their customers. Allowing anti-(insert any significant group here) software would generate more negative exposure than censoring that software.
Compare this to other places of business: would everyone be OK with Wal-mart allowing the same Exodus International group to set up a gay-changing booth outside their front door, right next to the Girl Scout cookies? (Only as an example, if the Girls Scouts have an anti-gay agenda it is not blatantly obvious) Or would they receive less negative publicity by not allowing it?
Well you're the one who said "bad and evil." I simply agreed that, in general, allowing ideas we don't like or agree with to be expressed is preferable to suppressing them. We do make exceptions, such as hate speech, or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. But that doesn't necessarily make that speech "evil" (if there is such a thing); it's just an example of the common good trumping an individual's freedom, like conscription, or taxes.
As for your political sign analogy, if I put one (or a thousand) signs in my yard, that's self-expression. If I provide space in my yard for others to display whatever signs they like, but specifically prohibit you from displaying a particular sign because I don't like the content of it, then I'm censoring you.
People load that word up with all sorts of baggage, but it simply means ... well, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of the word censor:
If I consider your speech objectionable and decide to suppress it on those grounds, I'm censoring you.
Whether others consider that act to be "bad or evil" would probably depend on how they feel about censorship in general, and the content of your sign in particular.
Baloney. You can put your damn sign up in your own f@cking yard. If I come take it away from your yard, that's censorship.
Yes, I can put my damn sign in my f@cking yard. And you can decide who gets to put their damn signs in your f@cking yard.
But if you allow others to put their damn signs in your f@cking yard, but don't allow me to put my damn sign in your f@cking yard because you don't like the content of my sign, the word that describes that is censorship.
The key here is that you make your yard available to people to put up their signs, but single mine out because you don't like the content of my particular sign.
If a newspaper publishes letters to the editor, but choose to not publish mine (even for a good reason, like to avoid a potential libel suit) they are censoring me. Doesn't make them "bad or evil" (at least in that particular case), but the word that describes that action is "censor."
People censor all the time. You did it yourself when you put the @ in f@cking. Presumably, you believed spelling the word out completely might cause offense to someone, so you censored yourself by replacing the "u" with "@."
I don't get why that damn word causes so much f@cking confusion.
I don't care why you're posting AC
(if they haven't already). Add a clause saying that apps that are racist, sexist, discriminatory etc will be rejected, and Apple reserves the final say in this matter.
I'd be surprised if they haven't already done so. In which case, there's no need to paint them as an arbitrary enforcer of morality. The app violated their TOS and was banned, plain and simple. Don't like the terms? Tough luck - it's their playground and their rules. If I've got it right, First Amendment applies to public or govt. owned places and the Appstore doesn't qualify as one since it's owned by Apple.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
Overwhelmingly owners of iPhones/iPads are happy with them--I think that speaks volumes about what "most" people who purchase those products want.
It says nothing... just because someone chose an iPhone as their best choice doesn't mean that they are happy with everything about it.
Apple does absolutely nothing to limit access to the raw, unfiltered, standards-compliant internet for all who want it-
So why can't people run the applications they want?
You aren't a freedom fighter, you are just an ass-hat who wishes that some $100 billion dollar corporation would make exactly the phone you want rather than the one that makes them the most money.
Well, now you're just being a dickhead... first of all, I want no such thing (I don't want an iPhone/iPad at all, in fact). I also never argued that Apple didn't have every right to censor, just that I disagree with censorship and treating your customers as if they can't make their own decisions, as well pushing an ideology based on popular demand... nobody was forced to buy that app, nobody was forced to be exposed to the content of said app - your analogies are ridiculous, and just because you like having your hand held so you're not exposed to the "evil" content of people who think homosexuality is a choice, you believe you speak for all iPhone users.... any justification to support your ideology will do, I suppose.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
http://manhattandeclaration.org/the-movement/Blog/11-03-25/Freedom_of_Expression_and_Respect_for_Diversity_There_is_No_App_for_that.aspx
I know experts, credible in other things I know more about, who say that they have helped persons wo self-identified as "gay but wanted to become "straight" to do so, and others who insist that this is impossible. This isn't my area of expertise, but evidence, including scientific evidence, and the First Amendment and freedom and competition in ideas are among those in which I do have expertise. I've read a number of things by experts on both sides of this issue, and, frankly, come away with the impression that both sides' cases leave much to be desired. I have talked to people who tell me they have chosen to anfd successfully changed, and others who say it can't be done but none of those who have talked to me, in or out of privileged and confidential relationships, tell me they really tried. Apps are a form of expression, and I think Apple, etc., set a dangerous precedent when they allow organized pressure groups' petition campaigns, threats, etc., to persuade them to suppress expression on controversial issues, regardless of which side has the current temporary majority on them. What's next, caving to pressure by the same people to pull Biblical and religious apps because the Old and New Testaments both contain strong language about this issue? Sprint, my cell phone carrier to which I am indentured for years, is going to offer the Android HTC but not the iPhone4, and I'm having trouble getting detailed information about its capabilities and available apps relevant to my legal and other interests to help me decide whether to upgrade or not. Do we really want Apple, Microsoft, Google, GE, or the Democrats or Republicans, or some of their big money backers, or whoever, effectively censoring apps or Ebooks on the basis of the authors' opinions?