[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.