[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.

[defroost]

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

[photophotoplasm]

> 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.

[JonnieCache]

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...

[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.

[Deestan]

> if [...] it doesn't incite hate or violence, I don't see why it needs to be censored.

It incites intolerance by implying that homosexuality is a disease.

[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.

[tosiabunio]

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

Shouldn't Apple remove all astrology apps then?

[joesb]

Is Astrology hate sugar-coated with pseudo-science?

[mediacrisis]

Vague blanket statements about possible future endeavors != hate.

[Confusion]

"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.

[MarkSimpson]

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.

[tallanvor]

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...

[westicle]

A little recursive perhaps, but why on earth are people downvoting this?

Parent not only responded to the question directly and cogently, but even cited sources. I'm bewildered.

[celoyd]

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.)

[willstraf]

> "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.