Google resists pressure to pull LGBT “conversion therapy” app(axios.com)
axios.com
Google resists pressure to pull LGBT “conversion therapy” app
https://www.axios.com/google-resists-pressure-to-pull-lgbt-conversion-therapy-app-aa98307f-f238-45e0-84ff-5829016379d0.html
110 comments
When I first saw this app in the news, I downloaded it to see how this "conversion therapy" app worked. I was expecting step-by-step instructions on how to go from gay to straight, but instead I got an app for listening to Bible verses and devotionals. It's as much a "conversion therapy" app as any other conservative Christian app. I deleted the app because I have no use for it, but the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
You can be against what someone is saying and for someone being able to say it.
I think that's lost on a lot of people, I'm glad you point this out.
I think that's lost on a lot of people, I'm glad you point this out.
There's a still more subtle distinction that I think is also lost on people: You can be in favor of someone being able to say something, but still be opposed to them actually saying it in a given situation.
For example, I don't think people should be barred from saying they hate me and wish ill on me. But I still am strongly opposed to them saying it, and if somebody is saying that around me, I'll either try to get them to stop, get them to go away, or extricate myself. I respect their right to independent thought, but I'm still not going to idly stand by for that.
So I don't think we should do stings to find people discussing how they think it would be cool to traumatize gay kids, but I do think we should oppose them trying to traumatize gay kids within our sphere of influence. And even with the social awareness of the modern age, people still feel pretty free to push for horrible stuff like this in public, so I'm not worried we're going too far at this exact moment.
For example, I don't think people should be barred from saying they hate me and wish ill on me. But I still am strongly opposed to them saying it, and if somebody is saying that around me, I'll either try to get them to stop, get them to go away, or extricate myself. I respect their right to independent thought, but I'm still not going to idly stand by for that.
So I don't think we should do stings to find people discussing how they think it would be cool to traumatize gay kids, but I do think we should oppose them trying to traumatize gay kids within our sphere of influence. And even with the social awareness of the modern age, people still feel pretty free to push for horrible stuff like this in public, so I'm not worried we're going too far at this exact moment.
It's hard to take that too seriously if you know the reality of how organizations like this operate. They know how to make themselves seems innocuous but they are a part of a larger system of psychological abuse and violence.
Yeah, I've seen enough of these orgs. They paint themselves as just wanting to help LGBT folks, but it's really all a ruse. They are vile, and have a hatred for anything different.
Why should we trust them when they say that?
This is used exclusively to injure LGBT folks. Sexuality is not something that can be channged at will, and attempting to do so causes immense harm. I can guarantee a good chunk of this app's audience are LGBT teens.
Look, I'm gay, and grew up in a very conservative area. While my parents were good, growing up closeted and seeing constant moral disapproval caused mental damage that took me some time as an adult to overcome. I was lucky.
I can tell you are straight. Please don't make assumptions about the damage that anti-LGBT rhetoric does.
Folks commonly confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of speech. This shouldn't be legally banned, but companies are within their rights to not do business with these whackadoos.
They shouldn't do business with them if they value equality of humans. They don't allow apps that advocate racism. Anti-LGBT bias is no different.
Look, I'm gay, and grew up in a very conservative area. While my parents were good, growing up closeted and seeing constant moral disapproval caused mental damage that took me some time as an adult to overcome. I was lucky.
I can tell you are straight. Please don't make assumptions about the damage that anti-LGBT rhetoric does.
Folks commonly confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of speech. This shouldn't be legally banned, but companies are within their rights to not do business with these whackadoos.
They shouldn't do business with them if they value equality of humans. They don't allow apps that advocate racism. Anti-LGBT bias is no different.
The open letter also clearly states "LHM does not... assert its views publicly".
LHM preaches that sexual orientation can be changed through religious intervention.[1] What do you think conversion therapy is?
[1] https://livehope.org/2018/08/13/a-different-gospel/
LHM preaches that sexual orientation can be changed through religious intervention.[1] What do you think conversion therapy is?
[1] https://livehope.org/2018/08/13/a-different-gospel/
There are no easy ways to get 3rd party apps onto a device. You can't import your own repo easily like you can with apt/yum/etc. Google/Apple/Amazon stores are bastardizations of the idea of a package repository.
Because of this, these companies have a monopoly on types of content. They literally control big parts of the medium for the general public.
Honestly, I think it's unfair to pull these apps. You might disagree with the ideas behind them, but individuals should have the choice and options if that is the route and those are the choices they want to make with their own lives. So long as they don't openly advocate violence, ideas should be free.
At what point do these type of restrictions affect peoples' freedom of religion?
Because of this, these companies have a monopoly on types of content. They literally control big parts of the medium for the general public.
Honestly, I think it's unfair to pull these apps. You might disagree with the ideas behind them, but individuals should have the choice and options if that is the route and those are the choices they want to make with their own lives. So long as they don't openly advocate violence, ideas should be free.
At what point do these type of restrictions affect peoples' freedom of religion?
Conversion Therapy seems a lot like violence to me...
Although I do agree with you on locked down app stores being a bad idea.
Edit: also conversion therapy isn't really what this thing was anyway it seems.
Although I do agree with you on locked down app stores being a bad idea.
Edit: also conversion therapy isn't really what this thing was anyway it seems.
I think you misunderstand the now expanded definition of conversion therapy. In this instance we're not talking about electric shock or anything like that. Conversion therapy here just means "read these scriptures and testimonials and then you'll be straight".
I think LGBT deconversion programs are a form of violence.
Imagine being forced to go through a "introvert deconversion" program where you have to read essays and do exercises that are designed to "help" you become an extrovert and shed your "shameful" and "perverted" introvert ways. LGBT deconversion is a far worse version of this.
Imagine being forced to go through a "introvert deconversion" program where you have to read essays and do exercises that are designed to "help" you become an extrovert and shed your "shameful" and "perverted" introvert ways. LGBT deconversion is a far worse version of this.
I think your definition would make the word violence less useful. Your definition removes what makes violence a unique and useful word, i.e. that it involves physical force with the intent to hurt someone.
There are better, more accurate, words to use than violence.
Quick note: I'm reading your post in the most charitable light and giving you the benefit of the doubt, a less charitable reading would be that you're ok knowingly coopting a word because along with it comes a whole host of legal and ethical implications that you want to bring to bear on something that you don't like and you know that it isn't violence. I don't think you are doing this but noting it for others that may be.
There are better, more accurate, words to use than violence.
Quick note: I'm reading your post in the most charitable light and giving you the benefit of the doubt, a less charitable reading would be that you're ok knowingly coopting a word because along with it comes a whole host of legal and ethical implications that you want to bring to bear on something that you don't like and you know that it isn't violence. I don't think you are doing this but noting it for others that may be.
[deleted]
I can see where you are coming from. I went along with that word choice because it does a good job of capturing the severity of the harm, which I think is important.
I'm sure there is a better word. Perhaps my sibling comment's suggestion of "abusive" is a good one. Something like "very harmful", while potentially suitable, feels rather vague and uninspiring.
Yes, for example, abuse.
Many programs could be seen as a form of violence if you're forced to go through with them.
Ok, imagine your introvert friend was somehow persuaded to voluntarily go through said program. How would feel about that?
People do this all the time. Look at Toastmasters. Now, forcing someone that was highly introverted to go to Toastmasters would not be a nice thing to do. Strongly pressuring them to go when they didn't want to would also not be very nice, but that doesn't mean that Google should ban the Toastmasters app.
Living in a free society means that not everyone has the same ideas about values or psychology or religion. These things will be debated long after we're all dead. Until every disagreement is resolved, the best solution we've come up with is tolerance. If someone is doing something voluntarily that's not significantly hurting you, even if you don't think it's a good idea for them, you're usually better off shutting up and ignoring it.
The last people I want making these decisions is the company that makes my mobile phone operating system for god's sake.
Living in a free society means that not everyone has the same ideas about values or psychology or religion. These things will be debated long after we're all dead. Until every disagreement is resolved, the best solution we've come up with is tolerance. If someone is doing something voluntarily that's not significantly hurting you, even if you don't think it's a good idea for them, you're usually better off shutting up and ignoring it.
The last people I want making these decisions is the company that makes my mobile phone operating system for god's sake.
[deleted]
Not good, nor would I feel good about them going through this LGBT 'conversion' app. But I'd feel even worse about helping further normalize corporate censorship.
Fair enough, that is entirely different question. I didn't intend to make any implications about that. I should have made that more clear.
> Imagine being forced to go through a "introvert deconversion" program where you have to read essays and do exercises that are designed to "help" you become an extrovert
There are such programs and exercises. They are just not called that.
There are such programs and exercises. They are just not called that.
You snipped out the part about treating the introversion as a shameful, perverted thing.
Do any of those scriptures tell the person they will endure torture in hell for the way they are? I think telling that to a kid is pretty damn close to violence
That is equally true (or false) of many other kinds religious teaching. I haven't reconfirmed it just now, but I'm pretty sure the bible and the quran promise similar punishments for something as heinous as murdering an innocent or as harmless as blasphemy.
>Do any of those scriptures tell the person they will endure torture in hell for the way they are?
Surprisingly, not really. They'll endure torture in hell for the gay sex, but not being gay per se (note that but so will everyone who masturbates, or marries a foreigner, or wears clothing with mixed fabrics, or, according to Revelations, most Christians.
Surprisingly, not really. They'll endure torture in hell for the gay sex, but not being gay per se (note that but so will everyone who masturbates, or marries a foreigner, or wears clothing with mixed fabrics, or, according to Revelations, most Christians.
...sorry this comment is so awkwardly worded, but I lost the edit window for it almost immediately, I don't know why.
My underlying point would have been that the Bible considers the act of gay sex a sin, but sex between people of the same gender wasn't necessarily considered deviant in many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks.) The concepts of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" identity, or of "being gay" would have been alien.
My underlying point would have been that the Bible considers the act of gay sex a sin, but sex between people of the same gender wasn't necessarily considered deviant in many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks.) The concepts of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" identity, or of "being gay" would have been alien.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If there wre plenty of apps that helps you accepting yourself being gay, why can’t there be apps helping you accepting yourself being straight?
The underlying assumption here, that being gay is a delusion which can be corrected through therapy and scripture, is incorrect.
Straight people don't need help accepting their straightness anyway... heteronormativity is already the universal cultural norm.
Straight people don't need help accepting their straightness anyway... heteronormativity is already the universal cultural norm.
> Conversion Therapy seems a lot like violence to me...
It doesn't to me. Who is right?
It doesn't to me. Who is right?
The victims are right.
Conversation Therapy is associated with increased suicide risks[1]. People are literally killing themselves as a result of going through that experience. I suggest you think more about it.
You are free to have your own definition of "violence", so let's instead settle on the more specific "psychological abuse"[2] and agree that it's not something we, as a society, should accept.
[1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/2018...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse
Conversation Therapy is associated with increased suicide risks[1]. People are literally killing themselves as a result of going through that experience. I suggest you think more about it.
You are free to have your own definition of "violence", so let's instead settle on the more specific "psychological abuse"[2] and agree that it's not something we, as a society, should accept.
[1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/2018...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse
It has severe consequences for the victim. While it's not physical violence, it does far more harm than a punch.
Are you really that confident that LGBT is not simply a less-common, totally healthy form of the human experience?
On iPhone this is true, but it's easy as heck on Android. You can just download an APK from the Web and install it, or you can install a secondary repository like APKPure if you want a centralized source. Having done both several times, I'd say it is generally harder to install an app that isn't in your distro's standard repo on Linux than it is to install an app outside the Play Store on Android.
>There are no easy ways to get 3rd party apps onto a device.
FWIW, on Android, it's as simple as downloading a package and allowing installation from 'unknown sources'. It's a trivial and common process.
FWIW, on Android, it's as simple as downloading a package and allowing installation from 'unknown sources'. It's a trivial and common process.
>FWIW, on Android, it's as simple as downloading a package and allowing installation from 'unknown sources'. It's a trivial and common process.
Indeed, and there are apps (F-Droid) that'll handle automatic update checks, searching and downloading of APKs etc for you.
Indeed, and there are apps (F-Droid) that'll handle automatic update checks, searching and downloading of APKs etc for you.
At the point that someone tries to block them from being distributed across public infrastructure like the internet.
As long as we're talking about Google's app store, we're limited to talking about Google's terms of service and the relative pressure from the outside groups to force them to either keep/remove the app or suffer bad PR from said groups.
As long as we're talking about Google's app store, we're limited to talking about Google's terms of service and the relative pressure from the outside groups to force them to either keep/remove the app or suffer bad PR from said groups.
>At what point do these type of restrictions affect peoples' freedom of religion?
At the point they don't have any other options. They can teach their conversion therapy in person if they want. They can make websites. They can send out newsletters. They can write books. Why should Google, Apple, MS, or anyone else be forced to host this app? It's clear that the "community standards" don't allow for apps like this, because 139k people want it out and ~20 want the app to stay.
At the point they don't have any other options. They can teach their conversion therapy in person if they want. They can make websites. They can send out newsletters. They can write books. Why should Google, Apple, MS, or anyone else be forced to host this app? It's clear that the "community standards" don't allow for apps like this, because 139k people want it out and ~20 want the app to stay.
[deleted]
> They literally control big parts of the medium for the general public
Conversion therapy is not for the "general public." It's an anti-science and extremist form of homophobia with potentially serious consequences for the victims. And honestly, that's a charitable interpretation.
Honestly this is the exact sort of shit that should be pulled by any company with a backbone.
Conversion therapy is not for the "general public." It's an anti-science and extremist form of homophobia with potentially serious consequences for the victims. And honestly, that's a charitable interpretation.
Honestly this is the exact sort of shit that should be pulled by any company with a backbone.
[deleted]
It's hard to tell from the article, but this doesn't sound like conversion therapy at all, it sounds like voluntarily downloading a set of articles and testimonials.
Either I'm missing something or the reaction is overzealous.
Either I'm missing something or the reaction is overzealous.
I'm seeing that as well. For a while I was under the impression that "conversion therapy" was meant to refer to outdated and disproved forms of therapy like electric shocks that were now considered inhumane. But this app just seems like some religious reading to convince you not to be gay.
You might be thinking of aversion therapy. Conversion therapy is also considered outdated, unproven, and unethical.[1]
[1] https://www.hrc.org/resources/policy-and-position-statements...
[1] https://www.hrc.org/resources/policy-and-position-statements...
I'm probably as leftist as you can be (and agnostic)... but this trend is a bit ridiculous. Some in the left are becoming as intellectually dishonest as some in the right/conservative side.
You may dislike religious doctrine, but this is the type of argument that keeps "adult content" and similar "for the good of the children" apps away from the apple store.
You can be both PRO LGBT rights, and also PRO people can hold differing opinions. Policing morality is bad for both the religious AND the marginalized.
You may dislike religious doctrine, but this is the type of argument that keeps "adult content" and similar "for the good of the children" apps away from the apple store.
You can be both PRO LGBT rights, and also PRO people can hold differing opinions. Policing morality is bad for both the religious AND the marginalized.
Does being liberal mean you are tolerant only if it suits your point of view?
I am pretty openminded myself and don't care of someone's orientation but everyone should have the right to do whatever the f they want as long as it's not hurting anybody. Don't tell me it's hurting their feelings!
I am pretty openminded myself and don't care of someone's orientation but everyone should have the right to do whatever the f they want as long as it's not hurting anybody. Don't tell me it's hurting their feelings!
Seems like a matter of consistency more than anything. Google has already decided to make an app store that excludes things like overt racism. Seems like if you're going to exclude racism you should also exclude homophobia. Whether we should tolerate both these people is an interesting question, but not the issue in this case.
Hmm, not sure if that logic flies. There are many people who hold the view that race (whatever that may be) is innate while homosexuality is not. They would argue that the latter can be “cured” while the former cannot. From that perspective the distinction makes sense. (I do not subscribe to that view at all, btw.)
Yes, these people are wrong. We must be able to make judgements of fact to make good decisions about these things.
As soon as you say wrong, you start sounding like the people running these churches.
I am ok with people being wrong, that's why we have freedoms. It's society's job to pressure churches and other organizations to turn away from these dangerous beliefs. Not the governments.
That's part of why I fight for freedoms like this. Wrong is subjective, the objective truth of wrong comes from society. If you allow governments to determine what is "wrong" we would have never gotten to the point that we are having these conversations.
Some of our beliefs will be wrong to a future generation, by allowing them the freedom to change them through societal pressure we allow society to grow without creating the friction of civil unrest to grow from that vector.
I am ok with people being wrong, that's why we have freedoms. It's society's job to pressure churches and other organizations to turn away from these dangerous beliefs. Not the governments.
That's part of why I fight for freedoms like this. Wrong is subjective, the objective truth of wrong comes from society. If you allow governments to determine what is "wrong" we would have never gotten to the point that we are having these conversations.
Some of our beliefs will be wrong to a future generation, by allowing them the freedom to change them through societal pressure we allow society to grow without creating the friction of civil unrest to grow from that vector.
Who's talking about the government? This is about Google. I'm talking about being factually wrong, not morally wrong.
>Who's talking about the government? This is about Google.
True.
> I'm talking about being factually wrong, not morally wrong.
True.
I was taking things out of context.
I don't love how much power these companies have with their app stores. I'll be interested to see how regulation of these falls out and whether or not that regulation makes them more open or closed. (this was my thinking when I mentioned the government above).
True.
> I'm talking about being factually wrong, not morally wrong.
True.
I was taking things out of context.
I don't love how much power these companies have with their app stores. I'll be interested to see how regulation of these falls out and whether or not that regulation makes them more open or closed. (this was my thinking when I mentioned the government above).
[deleted]
Declaring yourself as 'Liberal' is a way to identify yourself as someone who believes in a series of popularized beliefs held by the American Left (in this context I think it is a US-centric topic). In Silicon Valley these beliefs are extremely popular thus there is a large benefit for a company or individual to project themselves as a strong member of the group. What we are seeing is a rational judgement by Google which goes against the mainstay belief of American Liberals that anything but encouragement of LGBT is evil and is a harbinger back to recent US history where LGBT individuals were repressed and actively persecuted.
I'm strongly against conversion therapy but if the facts I'm seeing are true I believe Google made the right decision because this app does not repress or actively persecute LGBT individuals.
Also for what it's worth, though it shouldn't matter, I am a liberal.
Offtopic: HN users use the downvote button as a way of hiding content they disagree with. It should instead be used to hide content that does NOT add to the discussion (or is hateful, or a few other valid reasons).
I'm strongly against conversion therapy but if the facts I'm seeing are true I believe Google made the right decision because this app does not repress or actively persecute LGBT individuals.
Also for what it's worth, though it shouldn't matter, I am a liberal.
Offtopic: HN users use the downvote button as a way of hiding content they disagree with. It should instead be used to hide content that does NOT add to the discussion (or is hateful, or a few other valid reasons).
> Does being liberal mean you are tolerant only if it suits your point of view?
Empirically, yes, it does. It's true that it shouldn't, as you seem to be implying, but people seem to like thinking their enemies are irredeemably evil monsters, and liberalism isn't magically immune to that.
Empirically, yes, it does. It's true that it shouldn't, as you seem to be implying, but people seem to like thinking their enemies are irredeemably evil monsters, and liberalism isn't magically immune to that.
Intolerance of intolerance seems to go hand-in-glove with tolerance.
Bullies need a victim, but they also need most other people to look the other way.
These apps are mostly used on teenagers, with pressure from their parents and mentors. There's a fine line between bad parenting and bullying your kids, and there are certainly arguments about where that line is.
All I know is my kid has two friends who fantasize about coming to live at our house (or getting emancipated) because their parents are homophobes. Some people know what kind of adult they're going to be, others are surprised by it, but if you're into puberty and think you probably aren't cisgendered, then I'm confident that you aren't destined to be a poster child for heteronormativity.
At any rate, part of becoming an independent adult is learning to rely on yourself, on your instincts, on your own sense of right and wrong. If your parents spend your entire teen years telling you that you can't trust yourself, that's pretty fucked up.
Bullies need a victim, but they also need most other people to look the other way.
These apps are mostly used on teenagers, with pressure from their parents and mentors. There's a fine line between bad parenting and bullying your kids, and there are certainly arguments about where that line is.
All I know is my kid has two friends who fantasize about coming to live at our house (or getting emancipated) because their parents are homophobes. Some people know what kind of adult they're going to be, others are surprised by it, but if you're into puberty and think you probably aren't cisgendered, then I'm confident that you aren't destined to be a poster child for heteronormativity.
At any rate, part of becoming an independent adult is learning to rely on yourself, on your instincts, on your own sense of right and wrong. If your parents spend your entire teen years telling you that you can't trust yourself, that's pretty fucked up.
> That said, Google could face a backlash from the other side of the ideological divide if it reverses course.
Google faces a backlash regardless.
However, the "deplatforming" trend of the last couple of years is deeply worrying. Today Living Hope Ministries could be deplatformed from the Google app store. Tomorrow it could be deplatformed from PayPal. Someday maybe banks will deplatform them as well.
The problem is intertwined with the tendency for technology to produce monopolies. When the one platform that matters (say, Amazon if you're an author) decides to deplatform you, it's a blow you might not recover from.
There may be a ray of hope here, though. Left to its own devices, deplatforming will tend to produce a monoculture repellant to large numbers people (think about the narrow range of Disney movies). The deplatformed (and their supporters) will seek out new platforms more tolerant of actual diversity, rather than the pretend diversity gaining favor today. Some of them will thrive and eventually challenge today's gatekeepers.
Google faces a backlash regardless.
However, the "deplatforming" trend of the last couple of years is deeply worrying. Today Living Hope Ministries could be deplatformed from the Google app store. Tomorrow it could be deplatformed from PayPal. Someday maybe banks will deplatform them as well.
The problem is intertwined with the tendency for technology to produce monopolies. When the one platform that matters (say, Amazon if you're an author) decides to deplatform you, it's a blow you might not recover from.
There may be a ray of hope here, though. Left to its own devices, deplatforming will tend to produce a monoculture repellant to large numbers people (think about the narrow range of Disney movies). The deplatformed (and their supporters) will seek out new platforms more tolerant of actual diversity, rather than the pretend diversity gaining favor today. Some of them will thrive and eventually challenge today's gatekeepers.
Isn't `conversion therapy` what the opponent is calling it? If the app doesn't violate TOS, i'd rather it stay. People can choose not to download it (at least as I see it). Another group might have as issue with, say, astrology. I wouldn't think taking down astrology apps would be a solution either.
Seems somewhat more likely that this would do harm compared to astrology. There's a very real possibility that someone who doesn't know any better might take the concrete advice of the app. Most astrology apps aren't very specific about what they recommend you doing, and don't tend to recommend things that are clearly bad advice for everyone.
But do we really want to expand the app banlist to include "contains harmful advice"? That's a very broad, vague, and politically charged category. Seriously, how far do people want Apple & Google to go in protecting their mental bubble?
If an app for kids said that you could reach a magical land of unicorns and rainbows by drinking a cup of Bleach, do you believe Google should be obliged to host that app?
If we can establish that yes, some advice is far too harmful to allow propagate, then we can accept that we have to draw lines as to what constitutes harmful advice. Which then brings us back to the core point: Would conversion therapy constitute harmful advice?
Considering statistically it seems to increase the rate of suicide in people exposed to it and does not actually succeed at what it's supposed to do, I think it would be reasonable for a person to consider it harmful advice.
If we can establish that yes, some advice is far too harmful to allow propagate, then we can accept that we have to draw lines as to what constitutes harmful advice. Which then brings us back to the core point: Would conversion therapy constitute harmful advice?
Considering statistically it seems to increase the rate of suicide in people exposed to it and does not actually succeed at what it's supposed to do, I think it would be reasonable for a person to consider it harmful advice.
Helping people live in a mental bubble of homophobia is precisely the problem. People who would be vulnerable to an app like this would be people from places that don't give them access to too much good information about sexuality.
So I downloaded the app to take a look around. It has a lot of text and audio so there's no way for me to really review it comprehensively.
If there was something about gay conversion therapy in it I missed it. Maybe someone can point out where I can find it but it just seemed to be pretty standard audio sermons and text.
I think gay conversion therapy can be harmful, but I'm just not seeing it here....
If there was something about gay conversion therapy in it I missed it. Maybe someone can point out where I can find it but it just seemed to be pretty standard audio sermons and text.
I think gay conversion therapy can be harmful, but I'm just not seeing it here....
I'm seeing an increasing trend of tech companies classifying content with opposing beliefs as dangerous or harmful.
This is a very scary precedent we are setting here. We are taking away power from the voting public and putting it in the hands of tech company executives.
Regardless of what side of these debates you fall on, please consider the ramifications of what is happening here.
This is a very scary precedent we are setting here. We are taking away power from the voting public and putting it in the hands of tech company executives.
Regardless of what side of these debates you fall on, please consider the ramifications of what is happening here.
Good god, just wait until somebody discovers the number of 'horoscope' or 'biorhythms' apps that are available on both Google and Apple's stores.
More seriously, my inner adolescent doesn't want to lose the ability to give a one-star rating, due to my increased love-of-cock after downloading the app.
More seriously, my inner adolescent doesn't want to lose the ability to give a one-star rating, due to my increased love-of-cock after downloading the app.
Thank you for a bit of sanity amongst the flames!
It's pretty clear that if you provide a platform with any visible large scale user input, you're going to need some full time policing staff and decision makers who can take the time to look into things and make the call.
Sometimes you're going to be wrong, and sometimes right, and often reactionary as you realize there is X, Y, and Z out there.
Sometimes you're going to be wrong, and sometimes right, and often reactionary as you realize there is X, Y, and Z out there.
OrgNet(1)
Do they still have that women-tracking app from Saudi Arabia? It's laughable how these app stores try to represent themselves as the arbiters of morality by banning anything involving porn, but literal human rights abuses are ok.
https://livehope.org/2019/01/31/open_letter_apple/
They clearly state they are not a conversion therapy app, but rather a source of content and support for people who feel that their ways are against their own religion.
I do not support "converting" anyone in any way, but I am very against groups trying to silence people because of their beliefs.