
Apple under fire for approving ‘gay cure’ app - NSMeta
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/20993-apple-under-fire-for-approv
======
tallanvor
This highlights the problem with Apple's decision to play the part of the
gatekeeper in their app store, and seriously calls into question their claim
of not allowing offensive content.

Apple does need to be careful here - the GLBT population tends to skew towards
Apple products, at least based on my experience, and I doubt they want to
alienate this segment of their user base.

------
michaeldhopkins
I went and looked this up on the App Store. The title of the app is "Exodus
International." The categories in the bottom menu are "Home", "Latest News",
"Events", "Video", and "More." The "More" section includes links to Twitter,
Facebook, testimonials, podcasts, a blog, FAQs, some kind of question-answer
page, a fact sheet, and "featured resources."

Presumably somewhere in there is the video or text that talks about curing
homosexuality, but this app appears to fall into the category of restating
whatever happens to be available on the publisher's website...kind of like
ESPN or my bank. It's not a single-purpose issue app like the Manhattan
Declaration app that was rejected.

------
mtarnovan
Great. First they were under fire for censoring apps, now they're taking heat
for not censoring apps.

~~~
tallanvor
And understandably so. Apple claims that their approval process is supposed to
keep out low quality apps and objectionable content, to the extent that
they've rejected applications that simply display content easily reachable
using their own browser. Now they've approved an application that is clearly
offensive to many people - and one that makes claims to do something that
medical and psychological experts agree can't be done.

~~~
gte910h
I'm thinking this is a highly political issue I'd rather not see Apple wade in
on.

I value freedom of expression over any particular political party or
political/religious belief (including this particular inanity). Do I think
fake ass religiously oriented programs don't work should be published? No. Do
I think it's apple's role to choose whether to publish them? No, I do not.

Objectionable content is about keeping the store safe for kids. Honestly, many
parents would consider things around gay dating (<http://www.grindr.com>)
objectionable. Definitely enough people do to qualify for "many people" to be
an apt description. Should apple remove that app? Oh look, now that it's an
app you agree with, you don't want them to censor it.

Freedom of Expression > Pretty much everything else.

~~~
Dylanlacey
Sorry, but claiming to reject "Objectionable" material that they classify
themselves opened them up to a "political" issue.

While I find this app sad, I don't have any issue with it being there...
Except when compared to some of the apps that have been rejected.

------
sp4rki
Why is this offensive content? I'm all for gay rights and know a few men and
women with homosexual inclinations (and I'm not bothered by it one bit), BUT
freedom of expression is as much a right as the ability to choose your own
religion or sexual inclination. This app probably provides valuable content to
someone out there, and as such should be permitted to do so.

I'd be more worried of an Apple that blocks all apps that deal with content
they don't agree with than an Apple that allows apps that might might strike
the activist nerve in the sector of the population that loves to throw rocks
and close streets to protest whatever they perceive to be a threat against
affirmative action.

~~~
silvestrov
"Curing" other peoples sexual inclination is just as offensive as "curing"
their religious inclination. You are not really free to choose your own
religion (or sexual orientation) if you are constantly ostracized by the
community for your choice. Ostracization removes choice, i.e. freedom. So to
ensure freedom of expression (for other people than yourself), there must be
some limitations so people with non-mainstream choices are not ostracized.

An effective method to ostracize other people is to provide a lot of "help" to
"cure" them for their "choice". This creates a common perception that some
choices are less valuable than others, and that people choosing those less
valuable choices are less worth and it's ok to beat them up. And this method
is particulary surviveable as it can hide behind "freedom of expression".

~~~
sp4rki
Then again that would mean that I have to get offended every time I get a
visit from a Jehova's witness that wants to 'cure' my atheism. Believing I'm
wrong for not having the same religious believes is their prerogative (an
there is absolutely nothing wrong with that), but being offensive is not
telling me they think I'm wrong, it's telling me that it doesn't matter what I
think because there is only one correct religion to follow without letting
express my point of view.

Freedom of speech comes with dangers and responsibilities that lean on your
shoulders. If you're gay, it's your choice to come out or not. When you do so
you automagically earn the right to defend your position when being confronted
with an opposing point, and you also get the danger of being ostracized from a
specific social group. That's not the opposing party's fault, nor is it yours,
it's just the way the world works wether we like it or not. I might get kicked
out of the basketball court cause I'm white, or banned from a church because
I'm an atheist, which is for all purposes not fair (in the grand scheme of
things), but the same way I'm being given the choice to choose who I am and
who I socialize with, a social group has the right to exclude people that
don't match their qualifications.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it sucks and it's definitely not fair for
certain parties, but look at it this way: If you're a popular kid in high
school and you want to hang out with the cool people, it's your right to
exclude the people that are not cool as long as you don't violate their
rights. If you're playing tennis at a private club at which you're not
actually a member and the authorities that manage said place want you to
leave, it's their prerogative to kick you out.

If you're gay and you come by an application to 'cure you with prayer' you
have the right to NOT download it, as well as you have to right to express
your disapproval as long as you're not violating anyone's rights. The same way
that people that agree with the applications use have the right to download,
use, and incite the use of said app - once again, without stepping over other
peoples rights.

At the end of the day we all have the human right to make our own choices and
live with the consequences of out actions. If an action is going to alienate
me from a social group I have a choice. I have a choice to go ahead with
whatever belief I might have, or I might value more the social interaction I
might get excluded from. Gay people have two choices in this matter, if you
agree with their point of view, you can download the app (a high schooler
might need to get laid and drink booze to get into the crowd, illegal
notwithstanding, he's free to make his own choice to either fit in or not). If
you don't you can ignore it and then make a blog post about how you're unhappy
with the apps existence. Every person has a right to dislike me and my
beliefs, and that's fine. They, however, have no right to violate my rights
while disliking me and my beliefs... and this app is not violating anyone's
rights while preaching their beliefs through it.

------
goatforce5
Someone get to work on creating an app to cure people of their heterosexuality
through the use of pics of hot guys and alcohol.

------
maeon3
Trying to 'cure' gay people and recruit them into a religious organization and
culture is not as offensive to me as the practice of a central big-brother
type authorizing and deleting programs on a computer that I own.

If we don't fight this sort of thing one day we will wake up and all computers
will be like cable TV. you can choose between high-quality stimulating
channels, or "paths", but try to do something yourself, and you need millions
of dollars to penetrate the red tape and get your application presented to
more than a few people.

~~~
oemera
So basically you want to say that we should fight against censoring BUT not
against gay-hatred?

Man I can't believe your priorities.

First rule should ALWAYS be: human rights.

~~~
gte910h
He's saying asking for censorship of an idea you do not agree with is not the
right way to go.

Use other attitudes to attack the app. Honestly, attacking the app any other
number of ways that DIDN'T get it press would have been much more effective.
It would have disappeared into the void of a quarter million apps.

