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

  • @ilmagicoEnglish
    -15•1 year ago

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

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

      • @ilmagicoEnglish
        -10•1 year ago

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

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

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

          • @ilmagicoEnglish
            -2•1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

            • Flying SquidEnglish
              7•1 year ago

              Let’s say you have a cafe with an open mic night. One day, a guy comes up to the stage and starts yelling Nazi rhetoric and racist slogans. You can be a free speech absolutist like yourself and let the guy stay on stage, or you can keep your customers and kick the fucker out. The only difference between this and Apple is scale.

              • @ilmagicoEnglish
                1•1 year ago

                The only difference between this and Apple is scale.

                Bingo, that makes all the difference, and that there are a lot more than two open mic cafes to choose from.

                Cafés can rightfully kick those guys out, but when you’re as big and power as Apple, the law should (but doesn’t as of yet) curtail that power a bit, as it lends itself for immense abuse.

                • Flying SquidEnglish
                  1•1 year ago

                  Okay. What if it’s the only cafe with an open mic night in town? It’s not a big city. Should they allow the Nazi? Otherwise, it lends itself for abuse, right?

                  • @ilmagicoEnglish
                    1•1 year ago

                    They can go the the next city over, or move, or heck, open their own cafe where all their nazi friends can hangout and not bother us. But, you cannot just open your 3rd party app store for iOS devices, or create your own OS for all your friends to use (well, you can, but … you’d probably agree even opening your own cafe is much easier than taking on one of the largest corporations in America).

                    If that cafe (or chain) had a near monopoly on open mics, and somehow prevented others from having open mic nights, then yes, I’d say they should allow any protected free speech, but I should say they shouldn’t be allow to get to that point.

            • @MarrukEnglish
              3•1 year ago

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

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

              • @ilmagicoEnglish
                0•1 year ago

                Fully agree, and that’s exactly what I’m arguing for here.

        • @[email protected]English
          2•1 year ago

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

        • @[email protected]English
          1•1 year ago

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

          • @ilmagicoEnglish
            1•1 year ago

            […] alleging that Andrew Tate […]

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

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

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