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

  • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Grant_M@lemmy.caEnglish
      63·
      1 year ago

      So what you’re saying is the people at Apple have no freedom of speech, only rapists like Tate?

      • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
        23·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
          31·
          1 year ago

          You are the one saying Apple shouldn’t be allowed to use their “freedom of speech” to promote the things they want to promote.

          • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Not exactly, they shouldn’t be allowed to monopolize the market with unfair practices, should be required to allow app sideloading and/or 3rd party app stores and/or jailbreak without hacking (all things already true for Android btw). But until they do, then yes, their freedom should not be used to curtail other people’s own freedom (“my freedom ends where yours begins” principle).

    • Marruk@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.

      “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.

      • ilmagico@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.