
Apple removes "Gay Cure" app from iTunes - anderzole
http://www.edibleapple.com/apple-removes-gay-cure-app-from-itunes/
======
CaptainZapp
This app may or may not be offensive. Personally (being straight) I find the
idea of a "gay cure app" or "gay cure seminars" or "gay cure exorcism"
despicable and repulsive.

That said, I don't believe an app shall be removed because it may be deemed
offensive (by whatever standards).

Or as Voltaire put it:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death
your right to say it."

~~~
bad_user
Yes, but you know what's worse than removing "offensive" apps? Being selective
about it.

Or rather, if you make it your missing to ban "offensive" apps and a "gay cure
app" gets approved, then you look like an ass.

~~~
henrikschroder
That makes no sense, "offensive" is an arbitrary standard anyway. By
definition you're being selective about it.

I guess in this case Apple's standard is that they remove apps that are
offensive to their shareholders and customers.

~~~
bad_user
The term is subjective, yes, but an app that promises a Gay Cure is by
definition offensive, no matter what definition of "offensive" you choose --
it's also medically dangerous, since gayness is not really a disease.

So if Apple pretends that it's doing this approval for the betterment of the
App Store, like a Shepard blocking out impure apps from its garden, then
they'd better make sure Gay Cure apps are out, otherwise they are hypocrites.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
> The term is subjective, yes, but an app that promises a Gay Cure is by
> definition offensive

By _your_ definition - it had thousands of downloads and the organisation that
produced it has thousands of members who clearly do not find it offensive and
that likely extends to tens or hundreds of thousands of evangelicals (if not
millions).

That's how subjective works.

~~~
bad_user
I'm pretty sure there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in
the world that still think Niggers are an inferior race or that Jews are the
rats that will bring this world to annihilation or that believe Xenu, the
dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy", really exists and he's going to be
back one day.

Any treatment / cure that is advertised as such (without BIG BOLD letters of
warning) should be approved or banned by relevant organizations -- there's
precedent for it, like Scientology's E-meters being required to be marked as a
"religious device".

By my definition "offensive" is a notion or device that's used to spread hate
or shame versus other people's condition, people which are really harmless for
society as a whole -- since gayness is not really a disease.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Don't be me wrong, I agree with your views - these are things I find offensive
too, I'm just picking up the idea that something can be subjective _and_ by
definition offensive.

That's contradictory - if it's offensive by definition, there is no room for
interpretation by the subject and therefore it can not be subjective.

------
photophotoplasm
It didn't deserve to be removed in my opinion. It wasn't hurting anyone by
being there.

That being said, I can understand why Apple did remove it, because it doesn't
make any business sense to enter a PR war over the relatively miniscule amount
of profit they'd make from this app.

~~~
davvid
> It wasn't hurting anyone by being there

I have to respectfully disagree. I'm glad they got rid of this stupid app.
It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science. Apple made the right
decision.

"app store removes questionable content" -- How is this news? It's not like
the app store is known for being a "free" or "open" platform in the first
place.

~~~
photophotoplasm
> I have to respectfully disagree. I'm glad they got rid of this stupid app.
> It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science.

If it was hateful, I agree. But I don't think the article even says what the
app does, so how do we know that it was "hate sugar-coated with psuedo-
science"?

I assumed this app was supposed to help "ex-gays" (or whatever they call
themselves now) somehow. If that's the case, it's probably only being
downloaded by people already involved in this stuff anyway.

So if they're downloading it out of their own free will, and it doesn't incite
hate or violence, I don't see why it needs to be censored.

~~~
pharrington
>it doesn't incite hate or violence

This is the limit of freedom of speech under the US Constitution. This is
_not_ the limit for morally acceptable behavior, and has nothing at all to do
with a private company's control over their historically tightly and
arbitrarily controlled ecosystem.

edit: not even this. Incitements of violence is the limit of constitutional
free speech, not mere hatred. But to believe that propaganda claiming some
people can and should be "cured" of their sexuality isn't hatred is idiotic at
best.

------
rflrob
I really don't know how good the "offensive to large groups of people"
standard is. If there were a Qur'an app, might not a large group of (racist,
xenophobic) people find the idea of a book dictated by an angel to be
offensive? Fortunately, Apple is a corporation and need not concern itself
with being as exactingly fair as the federal government.

~~~
timdorr
Create some litmus test apps, then. Put up a "Christian Cure" and "Muslim
Cure" app and see if they get taken down or rejected. It would be interesting
to see the results.

~~~
statictype
I'm sure they would get removed. Those sound just as offensive.

------
stretchwithme
I think its fine if apps making fraudulent claims are removed.

~~~
sigzero
Except there are thousands of people that would say it isn't fraudulent. I am
not defending it, but "offensive" here is subjective.

~~~
Alex3917
If they can present peer reviewed evidence of its efficacy then it should
stay, otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to make false medical claims.

~~~
spindritf
What about an app "curing shyness"? Would you expect a peer reviewed evidence
of its efficacy?

IMVHO that's a ridiculous standard for a lifestyle app.

~~~
Alex3917
I'm only arguing in favor of applying this standard of curation to apps that
provide medical advice, I wouldn't currently apply the same standard to other
industries.

This is as much for social signaling reasons as anything else. For whatever
reason, the medical industry is responsible for more spam and hucksterism than
all other industries combined, so if you don't curate what people are
providing then the entire app store loses it's value and credibility really
fast.

------
fredBuddemeyer
why not get out of the judgment business, it's a loser.

just let (a significant number of) users report "potentially offensive apps"
and make a category out of it. if the ratio is overwhelming then (users) ban
the app.

------
kristofferR
How's this app any different from apps "curing" judaism or blackness? It
isn't.

It's pretty clear that nazism, racism, gaycism and other hateful applications
shouldn't be allowed on the Apple App Store.

~~~
willstraf
> "It's pretty clear that nazism, racism, gaycism and other hateful
> applications shouldn't be allowed on the Apple App Store."

Yes, exactly. I'm not sure if that above statement was an attempt at sarcasm,
but it's completely true, they shouldn't be allowed.

------
corin_
A part of me does support totally free speech, but the other part of me is
what made me one of the demonstrators against the Oxford Union when they had
invited David Irving and Nick Griffin, and also that made me be one of the
many people who emailed Apple (or, more specifically, Jobs) to complain about
this app.

~~~
megablast
Most of us feel the same way, but surely free speech is so much more important
than these other issues.

~~~
corin_
I've tried to have that debate between my two opinions so many times, but
haven't managed to find a way to be OK with people who are racist or
homophobic.

I'd still defend the right to call me stupid, to call all British people
stupid (my country), and many other things. But some hatred goes too far over
the line for me to not want to try and prevent.

I'm not particularly up on legal systems, but I believe that in both the US
and the UK the law is with me, to an extent at least - while freedom of speech
is promised, there are also laws against types of "hate speech"?

Plus, freedom of speech says that they should be able to have that opinion and
to say that opinion, not that they have the right to have third parties
promote that opinion. Extending that is why I had the right to complain to
Apple, and, while their removing the app isn't exactly a case of "free
speech", it is a case of them being able to chose what their company sells
based on moral choices.

~~~
wlievens
Classifying blatant racism under free speech can have actual consequences too.
Consider the genocide in Rwanda in which racist radio programmes encouraged
massive killings. You could say that everyone's responsible for their own
actions, nobody forced anyone to grab machettes and kill their neighbours, but
somehow that argument falls apart when you're dealing with mass hysteria.

------
michaelcampbell
Offensive or not, it's just snake oil and should be removed based on that
alone.

------
FirstHopSystems
Looks like Apple has cured the the 'Gay Cure' app.

~~~
FirstHopSystems
Down Voting "Really?" I will try to be more elegant when mentioning Apple
removed the Gay Cure app? Maybe throw something in there about lean
methodology and MVP next time.

