Apple removes "Gay Cure" app from iTunes

http://www.edibleapple.com/apple-removes-gay-cure-app-from-itunes/

by anderzole • 15 years ago

47 64 15 years ago

rflrob• 15 years ago

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.

tomjen3• 15 years ago

More to the point, apple would never have approved the sceptics annotated bible.

tallanvor2• 15 years ago

Apple doesn't actually have to be fair at all. They do, however, have to keep their shareholders happy, and that means they have to be careful not to do things that will significantly hurt sales.

credo• 15 years ago

However, the perception of being unfair can potentially hurt Apple.

I'm sure a number of religious conservatives are going to be unhappy with Apple's removal of the app.

People like me (who think the app is absurd and are not religious conservatives) may not like the removal of a religious perspective even though we disagree with it (as long as the app doesn't violate any laws, advocate violence etc.)

timdorr• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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

gradschool• 15 years ago

Not that interesting because they'd be obvious trolls. How about an app that purports to give support and counseling people who are questioning their sexuality, in two versions, with one for straight people who think they might be turning gay, and the other for gay people who think they might be turning straight? If one of them is denounced as homophobic and the other is approved, you could be on to something.

beej71• 15 years ago

"Straight Cure".

photophotoplasm3• 15 years ago

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.

MarkSimpson• 15 years ago

Why are people downvoting this?

I'm not saying it should necessarily be upvoted or anything, I'm just wondering what part of it people are taking exception to.

celoyd• 15 years ago

I did not downvote it. However, I imagine that some people think that this app does hurt people, albeit indirectly, and that this is so obvious that someone overlooking it is either a troll or oblivious.

(I am not taking that position, or any other position about the app or photophotoplasm’s comment, in this comment. I’m staying strictly on the meta level here. Void where prohibited by law. Contents may settle during shipping.)

tallanvor2• 15 years ago

I downvoted because the statement "It wasn't hurting anyone by being there" is wrong. Organizations and programs that advocate the ability to cure homosexuality are responsible for a lot of harm to individuals who are either forced into their programs or go to them willingly because they think something is wrong with them. These programs have caused or contributed to suicides among the LGBT community, so to say they aren't hurting anyone is just wrong.

this article mentions this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/nyregion/12group.html?_r=3...

davvid• 15 years ago

> 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.

photophotoplasm3• 15 years ago

> 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.

tosiabunio• 15 years ago

> It's simply hate sugar-coated with psuedo-science. Apple made the right decision.

Shouldn't Apple remove all astrology apps then?

defroost• 15 years ago

How is the app "not hurting anyone"? The implication of the app in question is that if you are gay you are some kind of diseased freak that can be "cured". Churches have been trying these kinds of "pray away the gay treatments" for homosexual members, sometimes with tragic results like self-loathing, suicide, etc. I am certainly for free speech, but things like this, hate speech, or the Westboro Baptist church protesting funerals of fallen US servicemen (see God Hates Fags[1]) are really pushing the limits of what is acceptable IMHO.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

photophotoplasm3• 15 years ago

> The implication of the app in question is that if you are gay you are some kind of diseased freak that can be "cured".

Well, the organisation that created this app explicitly believes that. There's nothing implicit about it.

But it's not like they're forcing this app on people. I'm assuming it's being willingly used by people who believe homosexuality is wrong and think they can stop their own homosexual urges.

If that's what they believe, let them go for it, I reckon. I don't have a right to tell them that they should be having relations that they clearly believe are wrong or immoral.

Confusion• 15 years ago

"you can't cure gayness"

"of course you can, otherwise Apple wouldn't have approved an app that does it"

'Apple' is a name that carries authority and that can be used to lend credence to misinformation. That definitely does hurt people. Read the above as the last thing a father said to his gay son. If banning this app prevents even one tragedy, then good riddance. There are no disadvantages to applauding Apple for removing this app.

JonnieCache• 15 years ago

We should remember, an attempt at a "cure for gayness" is what killed Alan Turing. If you don't know who this man is and worship him to at least some extent, you don't really belong here IMO.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alan_turing#C...

willstraf2• 15 years ago

> "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."

unless I'm mistaken, it was a free app (with no ads), so they made no money off of it.

CaptainZapp2• 15 years ago

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_user4• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

stretchwithme7• 15 years ago

except that this is a privately owned app store. I defend Apple's right to exercise its property rights.

But not to the death. I'm busy that week.

CaptainZapp2• 15 years ago

I'm not claiming that Apple does not have the right to curate their property as they see fit.

I, on the other hand - apart from not buying their products - have the right to observe that Apple Inc represents a bunch of unprincipled hypocrits.

I hope this helps.

FirstHopSystems2• 15 years ago

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

FirstHopSystems2• 15 years ago

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.

corin_2• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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

corin_2• 15 years ago

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.

halostatue• 15 years ago

There's a great aphorism that applies here: In theory, theory and practice are the same.

So it is with regard to free speech, and it's a thorny wicket. In a free marketplace of ideas, people are able to hear all viewpoints and select the most rational ones. Unfortunately, there are studies that seem to suggest that the repetition of a falsehood reinforces the ideas contained therein for at least some of the population. The best I can find quickly are "How Warnings About False Claims Become Recommendations: Paradoxical Effects of Warnings on Beliefs of Older Consumers"[1] and "Metacognitive Experiences and the Intricacies of Setting People Straight: Implications for Debiasing and Public Information Campaigns"[2]. (Look at the birther movement. There's an insane number of people in the U.S. who believe something to be true that is not only nonsensical but has been absolutely proven false. To many of these people, the means by which things were proven false has only reinforced their insane belief—and the more they repeat it, the more often they have a chance to convince others of their insanity being true, even though objectively it isn't.)

We know that words can wound deeply; look at the concerns over "cyber-bullying" and the reports of preteen suicides over some of those cases. As a parallel, it's illegal in every country with the concept of freedom of speech to incite a riot (even though the rioters are the ones causing the damage). As wlievens said, there's often direct consequences to hateful speech[3] that are deeply tragic.

Like corin_, I'm divided on this matter. I grew up American and emigrated to Canada as an adult. Canada has hate speech laws that can be fairly described as "prior restraint" and wouldn't pass muster in America. Those offend me as an American. But the level of discourse in Canada is, I think, better for such prior restraint. Obviously, one must be cautious in how one applies such things, but the improved discourse pleases me as a Canadian.

This is a long way to say: no, I don't think that free speech is more important than these other issues just because it's free speech. It's a complex problem without an easy hard-line solution that can be applied effectively. Because of the effects of repetition, sometimes the best way to stop hateful or stupid speech is to squelch it. And sometimes, it's the right thing to do.

[1] pdf: http://www.cerog.org/lalondeCB/CB/2005_lalonde_seminar/how_w... [2] pdf: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/07_aep_schw... [3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2358825

stretchwithme7• 15 years ago

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

sigzero• 15 years ago

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

Alex39172• 15 years ago

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.

stretchwithme7• 15 years ago

Fortunately, Apple is able to reach an opinion of their own.

fredBuddemeyer• 15 years ago

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.

michaelcampbell• 15 years ago

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

kristofferR• 15 years ago

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.

willstraf2• 15 years ago

> "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.

Apple removes "Gay Cure" app from iTunes

Related Stories