“Apple has reportedly banned an anti-abortion app from the App Store after complaints were made about it from ‘left-wing bloggers,'” Luke Dormehl reports for Cult of Mac. “”
“Anti-abortion group Human Coalition claims that, when Apple first removed the app, the company said it was due to functionality problems,” Dormehl reports. “However, when Human Coalition spoke with Apple representatives, they demonstrated that the app actually exceeded minimum requirements and ‘functioned better than similar apps from other developers.'”
“Since launching the App Store in 2008, Apple has periodically faced criticism due to its curated App Store and a sometimes inconsistent approach to banning apps,” Dormehl reports. “The Human Coalition app is still available on the Google Play Store.”
Read more in the full article here.
“Pro-life organization Human Coalition says its app, which is still on the Google Play Store where it boasts a near five-star rating, was removed from the App Store by the brass at Apple after they were criticized by pro-choice activists and liberal-leaning media,” Perry Chiaramonte reports for Fox News. “Officials for the Human Coalition said Apple then made matters worse by lying about why the site was taken down.”
“Officials for Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment,” Chiaramonte reports. “‘Harnessing the power of prayer and technology, this Prayer App brings together praying people from across the country in real-time for one purpose: to pray for abortion-determined families as they walk through their decision process,’ reads a description of the app on its Google Play Store page.”
“News of Apple’s seeming censorship of a pro-life organization came on the heels of Twitter having to reverse the ban of a pro-life campaign ad after a wave of backlash,” Chiaramonte reports. “Earlier this month, the social media giant had suspended the purchased ad of U.S. Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn, telling the Tennessee Republican’s campaign officials that a reference to ‘baby parts’ was inflammatory and would likely bring a strong negative reaction.”
“In the ad, Blackburn was seen announcing her candidacy and declaring, ‘I am 100 percent pro-life. I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby parts,'” Chiaramonte reports. “But the only negative reaction Twitter received was backlash over what was perceived as censorship on its part. Some 24 hours later, Twitter reversed its decision.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Regardless of the app, we don’t think Apple should be banning those that do not espouse violence or otherwise do not run afoul of Apple’s published App Store Review Guidelines.
MacDailyNews Note: Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Off-topic posts and ad hominem attacks will be deleted and those who post such comments will be moderated/blocked. Permanent loss of screen name could also result.
There is exclusive, inclusive and too inclusive. A pro-life app is too inclusive.
Before everybody leaps to judgement, it might be worth waiting for an explanation from Apple. This might not be simple content-based censorship. For example, there might be adult content in an app marketed to families with no appropriate warnings. Or the performance issues might be legitimate. So far, we just have one side of the story.
Oh no….
There will be judgement. Regardless of which side of the issue, it’s Apple’s right to include whatever they want in their store, and it’s the device owner’s right to be able to shop at other stores. Apple’s policies amount to censorship.
There is no debate to be had on whether it’s censorship. Only whether Apple has the right to censor. I believe there are legal proceedings on this very matter.
Using your argument there’s censorship in virtually every consumer market and by every company. Samsung won’t let me use the S Pen with my HTC phone. Censorship! Google won’t let me put Face ID in the Pixel. Censorship! Mercedes won’t let me put the rims from my Range Rover on my car. Censorship! Target won’t carry Mossimo clothing. Censorship! This is what capitalism is, my right to create a product or service and sell it as I see fit, and yours to buy it or not buy it. All you’re really doing is throwing a fit about a certain level of granularity, you’re willing to let lots of censorship go, but when it comes to this situation you get upset. Seems fishy.
Cutesy anonymous screen names created from scratch for every single comment thread, sometimes multiple times in one comment thread, should be censored. I don’t agree with some of the posters at MDN but I at least respect that they stick to one handle instead of weaseling out a new one every single time.
Nuff said? Funny that you use the word respect in relation to MDN comment threads. This site is a cesspool of fanboys slinging mud at each other. There’s almost zero intelligent discussion happening here. It’s a distraction for most posters, or more likely an addiction. These comment threads will never be properly managed, that would mean losing pageviews.
BRAVO!
You don’t pay attention much obviously, slither away.
Wow, what a riposte! Truly breathtaking.
More like Samsung telling me what I’m allowed to write with their S-Pen…
The trouble is that there are no alternative app stores on iOS. The only alternative is to switch to Android, which is something that many iOS users would rather not do, in part because Google’s Play Store (previously Android Marketplace) is notorious for allowing some malware through the cracks of the screening process. I however, avoid such problems by only downloading apps from well-known developers in the Google Play Store and downloading other apps from F-Droid. When you get down to it, Apple’s censorship is monopolistic. Their app store has no competition on its own platform – iOS users are forced to use it, lest they leave the platform for Android.
Or Apple can be legally compelled to allow other stores, as Android an every other OS always did. Otherwise you’re dead on.
Are you suggesting that Ford could be compelled to allow other companies to market “Genuine Ford Parts” and cover them with the original manufacturer’s warranty? Apple doesn’t prohibit other stores; legally, it can’t. You can jailbreak your phone and do whatever you like. Doing so, however, will void your warranty because Apple cannot be expected to stand behind somebody else’s product.
I understand that you don’t like the “walled garden approach.” I might even agree with you that a technically-literate user should be allowed to do whatever he wants without losing his warranty protection. However, aside from jailbreaking, how is Apple supposed to identify the users who have enough sense to properly use outside software and not blame Apple for bad outcomes?
One other point: Don’t ever go to a highly-ranked restaurant and ask the head chef for a salt shaker! His response will make Apple’s attitude towards jailbreaking appear mild.
No I’m saying Ford allow me to drive on any passenger car road.
And play any station on the radio.
Wait…they already do that. It’s Apple that’s restrictive.
PS-Screw the chef, that pretentious twit, the meal is my property. 🙂
But you’re eating it in the chef’s restaurant, and other people who see you adding salt could assume the food isn’t very good, word of mouth spreads, and you’ve negatively impacted the chef’s income. Or maybe some people come to that restaurant because they’re allergic to table salt and the chef makes great unsalted dishes. Now you sneak in your own salt, spill some on the table, and the next patrons that sit at your table are allergic to table salt and you’ve ruined their night.
Your actions cannot occur in a vacuum. When you act within an ecosystem (the restaurant) you affect that ecosystem. But you could order take out and salt the food at home (jailbreaking your iOS device, akin to leaving the ecosystem, although even that could still affect the ecosystem but it’s less egregious).
I am not in the chef restaurant. I paid and went home with my merchandise. And what do I care what others think about what I do with my product. It’s none of their business, and screw the pretentious twit twice for thinking that. 😉
Yes, you are in the chef’s restaurant, that’s the ecosystem. Paying for your meal and taking it home is akin to jailbreaking, which you could do, but from your other comment where you admitted you don’t know how computer viruses work I’ll have to assume you’re not capable of jailbreaking an iOS device.
Whoa, so you mean to tell me that Levi’s has a say over my behavior because of how it may reflect on them? Wow, just wow!
Yeah, okay, I’m a luddite, that I don’t want Apple telling me what to do. I don’t need to prove anything to you, and it’s you that has offered no proof. Just apologetic statements. Listen, I want to visit the clubhouse when I want, I didn’t sign up for your silly by-laws. And you wonder while Apple users are sometimes described as a cult.
Back up your words about how I can bring the whole ecosystem down. If that were possible, wouldn’t millions of jailbroken devices have infected a couple of iPhones. Maybe?
Not expecting any facts, just you pretentious perceptions.
I didn’t say you would bring the whole ecosystem down. I said the changes you want Apple to make to how iOS apps are distributed would affect the ecosystem and users other than yourself.
Jailbreaking does open up a vector for attacks, there’s iOS malware that exists because jailbreaking exists. Allowing alternative open iOS app stores would create another much larger opportunity for attacks.
It seems like you’re almost ready to let go of the fantasy that your proposed changes to the iOS app store would have zero affect on other users. Why else would you dramatically say “Back up your words about how I can bring the whole ecosystem down.” That’s called moving the goalposts.
Here’s just one example (there are many, many more) of what is happening on Android right now, because of the open model you want iOS to adopt:
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-faketoken-android-malware-records-calls-intercepts-texts-and-steals-credit-card-info/
You might be right that malware like this can’t spread from jailbroken devices into the current iOS ecosystem, but as soon as you have alternative open iOS app stores (applying Android’s model) this is what will happen. How do I know that? Because it’s already happening on Android. How can you not be aware of this?
An open model has advantages, as I’ve said, but you have to stop your nonsensical rambling that alternative open iOS app stores would have zero affect on the ecosystem. You sound like a lunatic when you say that.
Even Android proponents don’t agree with you:
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/dont-sideload-android-apps-from-untrusted-sources/
I don’t deny that stuff like that happens. Malware is a reality of life. We don’t censor our PCs do we? If we do, we self-censor. And that’s called choice and self determination.
This rigid, centrally imposed (as opposed to offered) restricts internal competition and can (and probably does) stifle innovation.
cont….
Like in the real world we need to be carful. And still, if we want Apple to take care of it, as it is now, we can. That’s choice.
“I don’t deny that stuff like that happens. Malware is a reality of life.”
Now can we finally agree that changing the iOS app model to be open like Android would affect the ecosystem and the users in it? It would increase opportunities for bad actors and malware, just as it does on Android. The advantage would be more choice, but you cannot introduce change into an ecosystem without consequences, it just isn’t possible.
Nooooo! Only individual users that may choose to shop elsewhere. It does not impact you at all.
Let me put it yet another way. It prevents someone from setting up a even safer shop,and limits the software choices. Yes, limits.
Sorry, it can’t be both this:
“Nooooo! Only individual users that may choose to shop elsewhere. It does not impact you at all.”
And also this:
“I don’t deny that stuff like that happens. Malware is a reality of life.”
Malware is much more of a problem on Android than on iOS, and that is because the Android model is more open. You want to change the iOS model to be more open like Android. This means malware will become a larger problem on iOS. That affects everyone in the ecosystem because as we see on Android malware can spread from device to device, and it becoming more and more of a problem, with even Android proponents recommending people do not use alternative app stores to help combat the spread of malware.
If malware could not spread from device to device you would be partially be right, having alternative open stores for iOS would only affect the users that choose to get apps from those stores. But malware does spread from device to device, as I already proved, and you can do your own research to assure yourself of this reality.
You are repeating a falsehood over and over, your proposed changes would affect the entire ecosytem. We know this is true because it is already happening on Android, and you agreed this was the case.
The only way it wouldn’t affect the entire ecosystem is if malware couldn’t spread from device to device. But even then there’s adware that causes many problems with ad networks, so adware just on your device still has repercussions outside your device and your own use.
In an open iOS app model you could download apps from an open store, unknowingly download malware as part of an app, send your kid a text message at school and now that malware is in the school network. There is no way you can say that changing iOS to a more open app model will only affect the individual users. We know this is true because this is exactly what already happens on Android.
You can’t possibly be this dense.
The only way those two are irreconcilable is if my iPads are your, or Apples business. They’re not. We’re not all the same and I don’t abide by those rules. Apple once said that jailbreaking was illegal, the Librarian of Congress said otherwise. My singular device, contrary to your argument, does not break the ecosystem. The ecosystem is still there for whoever wants it.
Okay, here’s where we might have common ground. Choice introduces risk. But the risk is not spread across yeh entire ecosystem, only to those that chose to not comply.
“But the risk is not spread across yeh entire ecosystem, only to those that chose to not comply.”
Okay, I have to conclude that you’re some kind of rabid fanboy. I just clearly laid out that the open Android model results in more malware for the entire ecosystem, which means adopting the same model for iOS would mean the same result. The reality on Android is that all users must worry about malware, not just those users who partake of alternate app stores or sideloading. If iOS adopts the same model, the same will be true.
We’re not having a conversation anymore. In the face of reality you’re choosing denial, because reality doesn’t match up to what you want. That’s a kind of mental illness.
That’s just bananas! All users, Android or iOS, Windows, or Mac need to worry about malware. Only iOS is censored, so when quoting about fanboy, think again. If you’re so correct, why not censor the Mac too. Some Android, Mac, and Windows users bear more risk than others, it depends on where and how the choose to get software, and what links they click. But to paint them equally across the board is absurd. Talk about denial…
“That’s just bananas!”
We agree on this, your opinion that making the iOS app model more open would have no effect on the ecosystem is bananas, it’s lunacy, denial of the highest order.
I’ll explain it as if I’m talking to a child, we’ll see if that gets through your thick skull.
1. iOS changes to an open app model like Android.
2. Like Android you can now install apps from alternate stores.
3. You download an app that is hiding malware.
4. That malware creates fake clicks on ads, meaning advertisers are paying for fraudulent clicks (this has already happened on Android).
5. You’ve already affected the ecosystem, contrary to your position that changing the iOS app model would have zero impact on the ecosystem. But let’s keep going.
6. You download another app with malware from an open iOS store.
7. This one spreads via text messages.
8. You message your kids, they have the malware now. Your kids message their friends. Now they have it as well. And only you chose to visit the open app store. Those other users chose to only use the official app store, but they got the malware anyway. Again, this has already happened on Android.
9. You continue to argue that making the iOS app model open like Android will have zero impact on other users in the ecosystem, even though this has already happened on Android.
10. Are you actually mentally ill?
You are delirious. Here’s why…
No one is forcing you to take step 2. Thus step 3, according to your fears can’t happen unless you do step 2. Meanwhile you can still visit websites with false clicks though email and other means. Never mind all that, aren’t jail broken iPhones supposed to do that now? Yet somehow they don’t. Repeat after me, viruses do not hop though the air to other devices. User action is required. I cannot infect you even if I were to jailbreak my iPad, intentionally give it digital syphyllis, and you put your iPhone on it while I the same WiFi network. Not without physical user input. Your premise is none sense.
Do not click on unknown links. Even an idiot knows that.
Yet, as if by Divine Intervention,it’s not happening now through jailbroken devices. Get real.
@That Depends
I read the TechRepublic article you cite. Sage advise, to be sure. Nothing PC users don’t already do, but good reference. The premise is to not load apps from untrusted sources. Good advice for Mac users too. Good advise in general, don’t shop where you don’t trust. Duh!
In my experience I sideloaded one app. The Amazon App Store. Android popped up a warning requiring specific action to install the non Play Store app. But it did. The point is, it wasn’t a silent install, and required my intervention. It even asked if this was to be a one time occurrence.
The article mentions areas of security improvement for the Play Store. Good! There at least is an opportunity for a Store with more emphasis towards security to be established. This is an impossibility on iOS.
It’s not like iOS is immune either
https://www.cultofmac.com/418020/malware-uses-apples-own-fairplay-drm-to-attack-ios-users/
https://www.cultofmac.com/229707/modified-charger-can-install-malware-onto-your-ios-device/
http://fortune.com/2016/03/16/malware-infect-apple-iphone-ipad/
And that’s under censorship.
Meanwhile, I blame the bad guys, but I won’t let the cops censor me.
“No one is forcing you to take step 2. Thus step 3, according to your fears can’t happen unless you do step 2”
You should read more carefully. You, applecynic, taking step 2 can spread malware to others who did not.
“viruses do not hop though the air to other devices. User action is required”
Wrong. This is already happening on Android. If someone I trust unknowingly sends me a file, text, link, etc with malware that they got because they took step 2, then yes, I can get malware from their device, even though I didn’t take step 2.
You also just disproved your own point, that your actions would not affect other users in the ecosystem. You’ve just explained that in an open app model I have to change my behaviour in order to keep my device safe.
You’ve also gone off the deep end in the process. That’ll be all I guess.
Someone can be unwillingly sending you a file from a PC,Android, or even iPhone and you can get malware if your not careful. Did you read the links I sent you? To further prove my point, why aren’t jailbroken iPhones infecting anyone. Surely the unsanctioned app stores should be realizing your fears as we speak. Which is it? My open iPan or jailbroken iPad. Which is safer?,
Put it yet a different way…according to your thinking, the ecosystem is already changed due to jailbreaking. And always was…
“Surely the unsanctioned app stores should be realizing your fears as we speak.”
It has already happened:
http://www.securityweek.com/millions-ios-users-install-adware-third-party-app-store
This affected people beyond just the device owner. Your myth of It Only Affects Me and My Device has been busted. So sorry.
Now, sandboxing goes a long way in separating malware on jailbroken iOS devices and secure iOS devices. But we’re talking about Apple being forced to allow alternate open app stores. That would require changes to how iOS security is handled. Whoops, there’s that nasty word again, change. Which you said won’t happen, moving iOS to an open app model like Android wouldn’t change anything, wouldn’t affect anyone other than just the people who choose to use alternate iOS app stores. Oh wait, I just proved that isn’t true.
But, but, but adware can happen on many platforms. Sure, but this instance of it happened because of third party iOS app stores, which means your No Change! myth is over.
Look, I don’t give a crap if you want an open iOS app model, but you must now admit that implementing an open iOS app model would affect more than just the users/devices that choose to use alternate iOS app stores. I’ve proven that isn’t true.
You won’t admit anything though, because you’re an Apple hating lunatic.
Read the article. Let’s put the Enterprise License matter aside for this argument as it doesn’t really impact our debate.
These millions of users chose to download something from a debatable third party store,Haima on their own accord. They did not get it from others over the air. This supports my point that you should be able to shop freely at your own risk. If y ok don’t want to risk, stay in Apple’s or other store that you trust. Don’t you think that millions ofinfestations if transmitted over the air, without user intervention would have been commonplace by now? The rest of iOS remained unaffected.
“They did not get it from others over the air. This supports my point”
No, your claim is that allowing alternate app stores will have zero impact, that only the individual user downloading the app from the alternate store will be affected. I have now proven that claim to be false. That’s the end of the debate I’m afraid. Move the goalposts all you want.
Millions of individual users… This requires user action. Goalposts stay put.
“Millions of individual users… This requires user action.”
Whoops, looks like this Android malware doesn’t require user action, it spreads via bluetooth. To avoid it I would have to keep bluetooth turned off and be careful about when I use bluetooth.
https://www.enigmasoftware.com/backdoor-androidos-obad-a-may-be-most-difficult-mobile-trojan-remove/
So what now? That took two minutes on Google to find, and I found references to other malware that uses bluetooth to infect other devices, again no user action required.
You could get this malware from a third party app store and spread it without knowing, no user action required on your device or mine.
How much evidence is it going to take for you to admit you were wrong about third party app stores having no impact?
So.. They need to fix that, but their not going to lock down to one store. That would be changing the ecosystem. I personally run AV. Not perfect, but together with judicious practices, it helps.
I will dig in ti see how the infestation occurs via Bluetooth and get back to you.
Okay, looked into it already (aren’t we high school kids clever) and it wasn’t even difficult. Yes! It can still send a file tok other’s via Bluetooth. Accepting the connection request and Bluetooth download would require user action. Otherwise user action could be defaulted to required. iOS already requires this. How about something not 4 years old?
“I personally run AV. Not perfect, but together with judicious practices, it helps.”
There you have it, in an open app store model I have to be more careful and pay more attention to avoiding malware.
I have also clearly shown that an open app store model causes adware which affects more than just the individual user, but you ignored that because it disproves your argument.
I clearly showed malware that spreads via bluetooth, which specifically says no user action is required, all that needs to happen is that bluetooth is on. I’m sure some bluetooth malware does require user action but I found more than one that does not. Your response, “Oh, it’s four years old”, so it doesn’t count?
Come on man, your argument is destroyed. I might even agree that an open iOS app model could be better, but there is just no way it doesn’t introduce change to the ecosystem and to user behaviour.
Yes, you have to be more careful in an open model. I think we agreed to that from the beginning. Or…you could stay in the safe zone.
As far as the Bluetooth situation, it would be a patch, which are changes to the whole ecosystem, I know. The ecosystem changes frequently. What are we up to… 11.03?
Here’s a quote about another bluetooth malware: “The BlueBorne attack vector requires no user interaction, is compatible to all software versions, and does not require any preconditions or configurations aside of the Bluetooth being active.”
“Yes, you have to be more careful in an open model. I think we agreed to that from the beginning. Or…you could stay in the safe zone.”
No, as I’ve shown there is no safe zone. All users will have to be more careful, especially with bluetooth malware that requires no user action. Oops, that’s an impact beyond the individual user, which you said wouldn’t happen in an open app store model. You probably should have googled a bit more before you said all malware requires user action. Oops again.
“As far as the Bluetooth situation, it would be a patch”
No, Apple surely won’t have to patch additional malware because of an open app store model, because you said there would be no impact beyond the individual user. Oops.
“The ecosystem changes frequently. What are we up to… 11.03”
Oh, so what you really meant was no impact other than the normal impact that would happen in an open app store model. Riiiiight. Pretty sure that’s what I’ve been saying and you’ve been saying nope, nope, nope no impact beyond the individual user.
Do you understand now that you were wrong about that? Probably not. Even if I was in favor of an open app store model I still understand that moving to that open model would have an impact on all users. It has to. Would that impact be onerous? Maybe it wouldn’t be too bad. Maybe the benefits would outweigh the negatives. But there is no debate about whether there would be an impact. There would be.
No, any high schooler knows that many iOS updates require security patches. Bluetooth user approval already exists, and can be more strictly enforced, because, you know, a jailbroken iPhone still cannot do what this Android bug did.
“Bluetooth user approval already exists, and can be more strictly enforced”
Oops yet again, stricter enforcement is a *change*.
Now your being dense. Every iOS update is a change. Answer the question, can a unbroken iPhone in fact via Bluetooth, a non-jailbroken iPhone. That’s the crux if this entire argument. Are you aware of any such case. I’m not, until you demonstrate that, I’m sticking to my guns.
Non-jailbroken… damn autocorrect.
“Answer the question, can a unbroken iPhone in fact via Bluetooth, a non-jailbroken iPhone. That’s the crux if this entire argument.”
No, that never was the crux of the argument. You’ve now changed to that (moved the goalposts) because I destroyed your original position, that an open app store model would have no impact beyond the individual user choosing to install third party apps. You keep ignoring that jailbroken iPhones and third party apps have already resulted in malware that wreaks havoc with ad networks. That’s already an impact beyond the individual user. That’s actually all I needed to prove to destroy your argument. However I also proved that malware can spread from device to device without user action via bluetooth. That also destroys your argument (the original one, not this new argument you’ve concocted to save face).
To answer your question, yes, in an open app store model third party app malware would spread between iPhones. How do we know this? Because it already happens on Android. Unless you’d care to admit that Apple’s security is far superior to Android and what is already happening in an open model on Android would not happen in an open model on iOS, because Apple is so much better at security.
I would be fine with you admitting that.
That was always the crux of the argument. I said it several times during this thread, now prove it or bugger off. I don’t cive a sh*t about ad networks, PCs probably attack them more than anything else anyway, and they would be in the same state if the iPhone were open or closed as is.
And to prove you at etotally in denial, just because it happens in Android, are you denying there are jailbroken iPhones. Perhaps millions of them, why doesn’t it then happen on iOS. You argument does not hold water.
Here’s what you’ve actually been saying.
“Only individual users that may choose to shop elsewhere. It does not impact you at all.”
“the risk is not spread across yeh entire ecosystem, only to those that chose to not comply.”
“viruses do not hop though the air to other devices. User action is required.”
“Accepting the connection request and Bluetooth download would require user action.”
Every one of those statements has been proven to be false. You have now shifted to your nonsense about jailbroken devices not spreading malware being the argument, because I destroyed your original position which was that an open app store model on iOS would only affect users that “choose to shop elsewhere. It does not impact you at all.” Those are your words. I have proven that an open app store model on iOS will have an impact on other users. That’s the end of it, but apparently your head explodes if you are proven wrong.
“I don’t cive a sh*t about ad networks, PCs probably attack them more than anything else anyway, and they would be in the same state if the iPhone were open or closed as is.”
This is not true. iPhone malware affecting ad networks is an additional attack, an expansion of the impact of malware beyond the individual user, especially given the high usage of iPhone owners. Again, your original argument is destroyed.
“just because it happens in Android, are you denying there are jailbroken iPhones. Perhaps millions of them, why doesn’t it then happen on iOS.”
An open app store model on iOS means there won’t be a need to jailbreak iPhones. There will still be people who like to tinker rooting devices, but jailbreaking will naturally decrease to a very small number of devices. Apple will have to figure out how to handle security in an open app store model, and warranty work, and support issues. Whoops, there’s that impact beyond the individual user again, how inconvenient for you.
Look, I’m done psycho, you are an argument zombie. You might want to see a shrink about your addiction to commenting on the net.
Still nothing about a jail broken iPhone infecting a non-jaibroken one. See ya…
Let me try again. As I hear you, you are seeking a legal solution to a technological problem. You think the courts should order Apple to change iOS so that every user has the unrestricted power to download any app they want from any unvetted source they choose, without otherwise weakening system security. That is just as unreasonable—and for the same reason—as the demands that Apple should allow immediate access to iPhone data in response to a court order, without otherwise weakening system security. A hole in security cannot tell whether it is a good guy or a bad hombre using it.
Who’s security are they weakening beyond their own? They are not potentially corrupting yours… just potentially theirs, if their not careful. It’s called self-determination.
Whose
The device owner’s. I use mine as I see fit, you use yours.
I should have said whose and they’re
I don’t think applecynic is particularly bright. Proper spelling and grammar is too much to expect.
Proper spelling and grammar are too much to expect.. hbyop
@Depends
Is there a reason you’re named after an incontinence product?
Must be ’cause you’re full of sh*t. You know we can’t edit on this site, and spelling is not a mark of intelligence. Just a bunch of made up rules.
I need to think of friendly nickname for you.
I know you’re mathematically inclined. That “language” is derivable based on few first principles. Please tell me the cosmic significance of the “order” of the alphabet? Any less valid in some random order? ‘ I’ before ‘E’. Talkin’ good… it’s the encapsulated idea that matters, no?
Are you talking to Herself, to That Depends, or to TxUser, or to someone else? The threads don’t run deep on this site, so context must be supplied by the commenter. Before MDN adopted the WordPress star voting system, commenters did supply context, by using @handles and plus ones.
Folks don’t read deep, don’t pick up nuances, don’t expect irony, miss double meanings, confuse cleverness and obtuseness. It’s because we older folks didn’t grow up with an impersonal internet, and we younger folks are callow and untutored.
“You know we can’t edit on this site, and spelling is not a mark of intelligence. Just a bunch of made up rules.”
I get it, you’re probably in high school and you have some trouble with spelling. I can assure you that spelling words correctly is not a bunch of made up rules. You’ll do well in life to learn to write properly. It matters.
Proud to think so young, and gasp, different!
The iOS platform, much moreso than personal computers like Macs, is practically a religion. Cook has more power than the imaginary sky superfriend. No matter what Apple does, no matter how much whining Is aired on MDN, the ios sheeple have sold their souls to Cook and refuse to even look beyond the walls of their garden, or even associate with a member of another tribe. High priest MDN beats the drum incessantly.
Next article: you cannot be a success in life unless you now buy an Apple Watch. real Apple zealots insist on it.
Conversely, no matter what Apple does you won’t like it.
Wrong. This is the same debate as whether a cake maker has to make a cake for an lbgt couple
If LGBT is a “protected group”, they do.
The media, especially Salon’s article, had made the false accusation that the App was revealing the names of women seeking abortions to users who would then pray for them. Apple will NOT leave any app on the App Store that reveals the identities of anyone. They will pull any app that reveals private data about anyone until they investigate to make sure of the truth of the allegation.
The publishers assert that the app anonymizes all users, including those who are contemplating abortion.
Since this app has been on the App Store for at least 2014, and no one has complained prior to the activists making this assertion, I am willing to believe the publishers. Therefore, I suspect the “functionality” issues Apple was referring to was that very privacy functions Apple is investigating. They are going to make sure that there are no functions in the App that carried names to other users. When they learn that is true, the App will be put back up.
However, until that fact is proved, Apple, with their guarantees of privacy to all users cannot allow the app to remain in the App Store. . . and would as a precaution would remove it until it has passed curation again.
“the effect of Apple’s requirements for modifying the app before it could be re-submitted for consideration would be that Human Coalition would have to completely overhaul of the app — a cost-prohibitive and unnecessary demand.”
Ummm, actually TOTALLY necessary if you want to be presented on the App Store soooo…. maybe pray that God will… something something?
I remember a time when anytime you read a whiny crybaby article, it was some liberal whining about something inane that could easily be fixed if they’d just put in the work. Appears there’s a LOT of conservatives in that boat now.
Read the ios fine print. Apple has reserved the right to change App Store rules anytime it wants. You gotta be willfully ignorant to believe that you have ultimate control over your apps. Apple is God within its Garden of Eden. You eat the forbidden fruit, no matter what you think is reasonable or fair or legal, Apple can banish you. Them is the rulz.
Do you people not understand what a walled garden is? It ain’t freedom.
As someone points out below, the app in question does not just assist pro-life users in praying generally to end the scourge of abortion. According to its website, Human Coalition uses Google data and similar sources to identify specific “abortion-minded women” (thousands each month) and then contacts them directly in an effort to redirect them to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. The app “notifies users when someone is considering an abortion and invites them to pray. It provides even more personalized features and interaction, allowing the user to see the individual and collective impact of their prayers.” Specifically, the app allows users to “pray for someone who just placed a call to inquire about abortion.”
This obviously has the potential to allow for the public harassment of someone who has the constitutional right of privacy in their intimate medical decisions. Anyone can argue that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but it is currently the law of the land. Women seeking legal abortions have the same constitutional rights as those who choose to speak against their choice. Apple obviously does not want to get caught in the middle.
As Human Coalition’s website says, their “innovative marketing team leverages internet technology, automation software, big data, offline marketing, and marketing intelligence to reach families at risk to abort.” They operate a phone bank with “paid, trained call agents… Their goal is to convert inbound calls, chats, and texts into kept appointments at pro-life pregnancy centers,” including those owned and operated by Human Coalition.
As a legal matter, Apple can censor anything it likes on its own App Store, because the 1st Amendment does not apply to private parties. The courts (as a branch of government) cannot force Apple to distribute content that it disagrees with, because that would violate the 1st Amendment. There may be “legal proceedings on this very matter,” but unless Congress and the states amend the Constitution, they are not going anywhere.
As applecynic points out, those who don’t like Apple’s policies can buy Android devices and buy whatever apps they want. They do not have a “right” to compromise iOS security by downloading apps to their iPhone that do not meet Apple criteria. The essence of the iPhone experience is that the hardware, software, and services are all centrally coordinated. Don’t like that, use Android.
No, it does not permit other users to contact the person contemplating an abortion. The person has contacted the organization itself. The data in the App is ANONYMIZED. The sum total of the information found in the app is similar to the following:
“Someone considering an abortion in Charleston, South Carolina, contacted a center.”
And other users are invited to pray for that “someone.” That’s it. Even a false name is not provided. Merely a city and “someone” who could use prayers directed toward her. No one is going to call her and berate her, no one will track her down and violate her rights due to this app.
The legal proceedings to which I was referring is the monopoly over distribution of iOS apps.
The owner of the device does not jeopardize anyone else and do not compromise iOS security, other than perhaps their own copy on their own device.
What law would support not allowing me to put salt in my soup? Yet,that’s analogous to the App Store situation.
Hmm. Poor analogy. Your phone is not soup and doesn’t operate like soup. Also, I’d recommend you don’t put “salt” in your phone, but legally you can. Apple won’t stop you, but they don’t facilitate it either. They do make it clear that “salting” your phone may void your warranty.
I choose to “spice” my computers with any software conceivable under my direct choice, my own direct programming, or my own decision over who programs on my behalf.
The App Store guidelines specifically restrict political, and religious speech. Critique of public figures, and basically controversy. It also forbids duplicating functionality. How about improving functionality?
And I would still not stop you fro spicing your computer solely from Apple.
As long as the app meets Apple’s published requirements and does not have any other issues, then it should stay in the App Store. If you do not like the app, then do not download it.
We must avidly preserve and protect freedom of speech in this country. The times when you are most tempted to suppress the rights and freedoms of others are the very times when you must work hardest to protect those rights and freedoms. The power of the dissenting voice, when presented in a peaceful and lawful manner, is the strength of this country. You do not have to listen. You do not have to agree. But you do have to allow others their right to speak.
I will never download this app. It holds no interest for me at all. But I support the right of the developer to have it included on the App Store. I recognize that Apple has a right to curate its own marketplace. However, given the size and power of Apple, it must be extra sensitive to the perception of discrimination or bias in its app review and decision process. Given the religious nature of this app and the beliefs and recent actions of the Trump Administration and Trump appointees, this could place Apple in the middle of a political and social maelstrom. In fact, it would not surprise me at all if that was one of the objectives of the app developer.
You know that the first amendment guarantees only that the government won’t censor you or punish you for stating your beliefs, right? It has absolutely nothing to do with what speech companies do or do not allow.
In America, the federal government is a subcontractor to corpoations.
Actually, the federal government is a subcontractor to those special interests who hold office… all elected/appointed/hired government personnel.
The problem we have is not with the wealthy/corporations/business/special interests who seek to influence those personnel.
The real problem is with those aforementioned government personnel who sell their influence.
You can’t buy what isn’t for sale.
In the real world, everything is for sale at the right price.
The problem is that congressmen are cheap sluts who are not being held to account by the lazy partisan brainwashed voters who whine about corruption but reelect their party no matter how corrupt and incompetent they are. Another sick religion.
Remember when Republicans claimed to care about budget deficits? Now they are lining up to do the bidding of the Koch brothers, no matter what costs are thrown onto the former middle class. No matter what debts ensue. Religion of greed. When has trickle down without regulation ever resulted in an increase of wealth going to the middle class and to government? The tax decreases being bandied about by the idiots in DC must be worth more to Koch and other oligarchs than the amount they spent lobbying for their special interest favors. You can do the math if only you are willing to question the religion/party you have chosen to worship.
The problem that your premise has is that Apple has a monopoly on iOS applications – and monopolies are, in general, illegal unless regulated, a contention supported by a plethora of court decisions since the late 1800’s.
Had monopolies originally considered – and acted in – the public interest, including recognizing their quasi-governmental power and self-imposing the same restrictions on themselves that the Constitution imposes upon actual governmental entities, it’s likely that the need for regulation of monopolies would never have arisen.
However, with their arbitrary control, not subject to review, over this particular market niche which has grown far beyond what even Steve Jobs probably ever conceived into an essential part of American “free speech,” Apple has probably already passed the point where they will become subject to legal review – tariffs, if you will – of the operation of the monopolistic App Store.
And this is very sad, because Apple COULD have done a much better job than the government would ever do, if only they had held true to their basic “enable everyone” ethos rather than adopting political positions as a company – and, for that sin alone, Tim Cook should resign and let Apple get back to doing great things apolitically.
Minor correction. According to the US case law, there is nothing illegal about monopolies as such, and there are plenty of them.
What IS illegal is abusing the monopoly position to prevent competition. Microsoft was charged not for being a monopoly, but for clearly abusing that monopoly position by preventing a competitor from competing in the web browser market (Netscape). AT&T was not guilty of being a monopoly; it was guilty of abusing its monopoly position by extorting customers and prohibiting competitors from entering the phone device market (you had to rent your phone from AT&T and couldn’t use any other phone).
As long as Apple doesn’t abuse its monopoly position on the iOS market space, it isn’t doing anything illegal.
The problem here is something else. It would be rather difficult to assert that Apple holds monopoly in anything. Apple’s market share in smartphones is fairly small, compared to Android; one could argue that Google holds monopoly there. It would be difficult to argue that Apple’s monopoly is confined to just iOS. Anyone who wants the app in question here can simply buy an Android and get the app. While Apple, and a few of us, Apple fans, love to argue that you cannot compare iOS and Android as functionally equal, Apple being far superior to Android, in court, Apple likely would rather NOT pursue that line of argument, and the court likely would NOT find iOS and Android functionally much different, for the purposes of establishing a monopoly position.
The iOS market is distinct and a market unto itself. A large one at that. There are barriers that are technical and barriers that are non-technical. That is not “wrong” in and of itself, but it dies make them a distinct market, one with monopoly power.
I can see it as a valid attempt at claiming a monopoly position, but legally, it is a rather difficult claim to defend.
iOS can at best be qualified as a distinct segment of a broader market of smartphones. At this point, with respect to the app functionality, the two main OSes are pretty much at par. The number of apps that are exclusive to one or the other OS is fairly negligible, so for all intents and purposes, two OSes offer largely the same functionality. It would be quite hard to argue that the two are separate, distinct market spaces. After all, there are millions of ‘switchers”, moving from one OS to the other. If the two were separate, distinct market spaces, the switching would be prohibitively complicated.
As I said, Apple, and us, the fans, love to claim that Android is nothing like iOS, it is far superior, and nobody in their sane mind would ever want to switch away from iOS. However, in the court of law, even Apple prefers to argue the opposite.
I choose to “spice” my computers with any software conceivable under my direct choice, my own direct programming, or my own decision over who programs on my behalf.
The App Store guidelines specifically restrict political, and religious speech. Critique of public figures, and basically controversy. It also forbids duplicating functionality. How about improving functionality?
And I would still not stop you fro spicing your computer solely from Apple.
I don’t know how that reply posted to you. Sorry.
Exactly what right is that? Show me in the constitution or bill of rights where it says that. The app is religious propaganda.
I suppose you are out yelling that nfl players have the right to protest at games too.
Freaking hypocrites.
Apple recently gave a chunk of $$ to Southern Poverty Law Cntr who considers pro-life groups amongst those linked with terror. The Southern Poverty Law Center has lumped Christian, conservative, and pro-family groups in with its “hate list” of neo-Nazi and other extremist groups. Doesn’t the Apple app removal make some sense in light of possible paradigm? Sure, there are nutcases in every quarter and one may not agree with the pro-life position, but linking “hate” to pro-life groups as a norm, is nothing but irrational hype. When Apple/Cook’s political head pops out in the SJW way, I yearn for Apple’s apolitical days…thank you Steve who knew better. The following article isn’t necessarily from a well-known writer, but his points, in light of TC’s SJW ways, helps me to understand there’s a better way. https://markstcyr.com/2017/10/08/are-tim-cooks-days-as-ceo-numbered/
Given such groups history the link is quite rational and proven.
Your determination of too inclusive is based an an insider’s opinion…yours. That’s pretty inclusive…or should I say, “too inclusive?”
If you read the article, there is a “prayer feed” where it actually lists when people contact or schedule an appointment with an abortion provider and where that provider is located.
Now that may ostensibly be so that the user of the app can pray for the person considering an abortion, but one can easily imagine that it could be used to harass the individual at the abortion clinic, try to scare them, perhaps even perpetrate an act of violence.
Based on that one screen shot alone, I would ban the app. It’s an invasion of privacy for those making a very personal medical decision, and one that potentially places them at risk.
Yes, anti-woman groups could use the app to locate where secular women meet to do legal stuff in private without wanting to be bullied, harassed, and condemned by Bible toters who, during breaks, take sips behind bushes.
Such apps may be gateway apps for more violent apps such as “How to Control Women More Using Religious Rights.”
That is a legal matter, not a software distribution matter. Such a program could well be violating laws.
Please tell us how an announcement that states the following:
“Someone considering an abortion in Charleston, South Carolina, contacted a center.”
could possibly be used to find any one specific woman in the entire city of Charleston and then target her for bullying, harassment, and violation of her civil rights, merely because she contacted a Christian Anti-Abortion Center seeking guidance on whether or not she should have an abortion? There are approximately 800,000 people in the greater Charleston SC area. If 52% of them are female, that’s about as anonymous as it can get?
The app does NOT list anything about when and where an appointment is scheduled, nor is it with an abortion provider. Do you REALLY think the abortion providers are going to share such data with an anti-Abortion organization, irrespective of HIIPA laws? If so, I have a nice used bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. The women have contacted the organization who PUBLISH THE APP seeking guidance and help about whether or not to even HAVE the abortion.
… it would be fairly easy if hypothetically there was only one center in charleston, SC and you knew the time of arrival
There isn’t, and you don’t.
Got any more straws to reach for?
But what happens if it isn’t Charleston, SC, but a small town with a single centre?
The problem with the idea of hiding / anonimising behind aggregates is when it becomes an aggregate of one. And there are quite many places where there is only one single such place.
So, while the app may technically not be revealing anything about anyone when it says “someone just contacted an abortion centre in Tuscaloosa, AL” (population around 90,000), or Tuskegee, AL (population 9,000), it may be all the information needed to identify this woman, if Tuscaloosa (or Tuskegee) only has one single such place.
Actually, a quick Internet search suggests that there IS only one clinic performing abortions in Charleston, and only two others in the entire state. There are other providers listed, but it appears that they refer abortion patients to facilities in Georgia or North Carolina.
I’d ban it, too. Batshirt-crazy religious propoganda.
And likewise, I don’t want your atheistic cow manure in my life. So, shut up and go to hell.
Yep–not wanting to see unborn babies murdered in the womb is “batshirt-crazy”..
I see this as more of a broadcast than a real app.
Apps like this should be neutral.
They should give both sides of the story with no bias for either outcome.
If any bias is shown – the app should be banned.
I’d say the same for a pro-abortion app or a pro- nazi app.
It’s a question of ensuring apps don’t promote moral balance.
/ln; what a way to live. Let’s neuter everything and let life be milk toast. This fits into the growing liberal paradigm where safe places are demanded and being offended is a legal offense. I hope you don’t feel the same way about books/audio books? If so, let’s be like the nutcases that destroy libraries because the arsons don’t like the book’s bias…and most have a bias. The real “banning” should be a result of using your human power to no read, or download the app.
You have no right to ban bat shirt crazy religious propaganda.
That depends on the situation, auramac could be well within his or her rights to ban “bat shirt crazy religious propaganda”, on their own property, a place of business, a newspaper they publish, a website they operate, etc. This isn’t as simple as you make it out to be.
That is true. But if Auramac wants to run an app on their own property they must ask Apple. So the reverse is not true thus device ownership is in question.
And that’s the point… I’m not on Apple’s property if I bought my iPad. Money and ownership changed hands during the transaction. This is not a lease.
Yes… but you bought, and agreed to the terms of sale of, that Apple device knowing full well the restrictions it comes with.
Actually you are on Apple’s property when it comes to apps. You’re part of the ecosystem. The proper analogy is a public park in a city, used by all who are part of that ecosystem. If you want special privileges to do anything you want that does affect other people. If Apple has to open up the app store and allow anything, or even just other app stores, that has an impact on the ecosystem. It cannot be otherwise. Many goods and services we all buy come with rules and regulations, especially when it comes to anything with a warranty. You are rarely allowed to do anything you like just because you ‘own’ it.
Now, you do have a solution to your problem. Simply jailbreak your device, void your warranty, and sideload whatever you like (if you don’t know how to do that then all you need to do is learn). That should meet your needs, and it won’t require Apple to support alternative app stores, and it won’t affect other users in the ecosystem.
This idea you have that opening up the Apple ecosystem has no affect on other people in the ecosystem is a falsehood (that seems to be what you are saying in other comments). There would be many consequences, positive for some and negative for others, but you cannot introduce change to an ecosystem with affecting the entire ecosystem. It isn’t possible. I suspect you won’t admit that because that would mean admitting you are a bit selfish, wanting what you want without regard for others that you share the ecosystem with.
Does not affect other people.
I understand you wish that was true, but there is no way to implement the changes you want without affecting the entire ecosystem, it just isn’t possible. I’m not the only person telling you this, and I’m also not the only person that has given you the solution to your problem. Jailbreak your device and do whatever you like. But stop this nonsense about the changes you want not affecting the ecosystem. You’re smarter than that.
This is not about weakening the ecosystem, it’s about bieng able to exit it. Has jailbreaking made YOUR device any less “safe”?
And by jailbreaking, I mean others jailbreaking making your device less safe. Also, you state others have pointed out, but these are just statements, not proof.
Weakening or strengthening depends on your point of view (you would say empowering the user in this way is always better), but the changes you want will affect the ecosystem. What you propose opens up the door to malware, spyware, viruses. It would create a new array of entry points into the ecosystem for bad actors, and we can’t predict how that might play out. Given the connected nature of our devices there would definitely be consequences. Someone I do business with could decide to install an app from an open iOS store, but oops it’s malware and because it’s on an open iPhone there’s some way it can spread to my iPhone that I kept closed. Or I didn’t know he was using an open iOS store and I trusted his device via Airdrop or email or messages, etc.
We can’t assume Apple can make iOS devices 100 percent bulletproof, and you’ve just created a whole new vector of attacks. How can you not understand this?
@Depends
No one would be forcing the “safety conscious apologist” from using anything other than the Apple App Store. That’s why I don’t understand it. But user choice, on the other hand, has been sacrificed for Apple’s interests and control.
I look at it like this… I had no problem with 90s AOL. It was a curated subset of the internet but no one forced you to use it. On the same machine, your personal property, you could enter and exit AOL at will, or venture to the internet at large as you saw fit. I see iOS as AOL only.
I’ve just given you a concrete example of how the changes you suggest will affect other users in the ecosystem, and you chose to ignore it. That tells me all I need to know about you.
By the way, this kind of thing is already happening on Android. Malware spreads from one device to another, doesn’t matter how careful you are about only getting apps from approved stores or developers (in some cases all it takes is someone you know to have a bad app). And even in the case of malware that doesn’t spread device to device, it still affects others outside your own use. There have been adware attacks that hijack your device and wreak havoc with legitimate ad networks. So even just malware on your own device can affect others. This notion that allowing you to do whatever you like with your device will not affect anyone else is a complete fantasy. Somehow I don’t think you’ll ever admit that.
You’ve made a statement and explained or proved nothing about malware jumping from device to device. None! Please back up your words, and this better not be like entrails in the sky.
This is the response you’re going to go with, that you don’t know how a computer virus spreads? Are you so invested in your fantasy that you’re willing to demonstrate extreme ignorance and lack of intellectual capability just to maintain your fantasy that your actions won’t affect the ecosystem?
@That Depends
And still no concrete explanation…
I think it’s your technical knowledge that might be lacking, just a strong belief system. Think about what your saying… If your fears were grounded wouldn’t jailbroken iPhones be infecting other iPhones? I’ve not heard of a single case. Have you?
I’ve already said jailbreaking is a good solution for what you want to do, it is akin to leaving the ecosystem (leaving the public park, or taking your food home from the restaurant). Jailbreaking should be a safe way to do what you want without affecting the ecosystem, since you essentially disconnect from it. But I can’t say with certainty that there isn’t still a chance that malware could move from jailbroken devices to the closed ecosystem. It’s probably not likely though, which is why I suggested it as a solution for you. But allowing alternative open iOS app stores is very different and would necessarily open up new vectors for all kinds of malware, much like what we see on Android. You’re entitled to that point of view, that you want alternative app stores, but you have to end this fantasy that it wouldn’t affect other users in the ecosystem. An open approach to apps has advantages and disadvantages, but no sane person can argue that moving to an open ecosystem won’t have any affect on other users in the ecosystem.
Is this really news?
Libs are up in arms about victims of “gun violence”, but are fine with killing 700,000 babies every year in the US in abortions. Killing is fine to them as long as they get to pick the innocent victims.
FYI: There is not such thing as “gun violence” just as there is no such thing a knife violence, car violence, fist violence, bomb violence, pressure cooker violence.
This country is founded on personal freedom and the barriers to restricting those freedoms should always be very high. Once you start eroding the foundation of personal freedoms, the entire edifice can begin crumbling.
I do not like abortions and I do not know of anyone who does. But I do support a woman’s right of choice, as difficult and unpleasant as that choice may be. If you want to further restrict women’s right to reproductive choice, then you need to be prepared to take responsibility for the consequences. Are you willing to adopt every child born as a result of additional restrictions placed on abortion, regardless of race, health, etc.? If not, then you should have no say in the matter. If you want to take responsibility for the decision, then you must also take responsibility for the consequences.
If birth control options were supported by the political right, then there would be fewer abortions in this country. Abstinence approaches have limited efficacy. Face it, the “be fruitful and multiply” philosophy is getting close to destroying the Earth.
Very simple. If you don’t want to spend your own money on birth control or raising a child, don’t have sex.
The political right support ALL birth control options that are paid for by the people using them.
Then I am sure you would agree that tax exemption status should be eliminated for churches and political groups. After all, you use municipal resources without paying for them. Thieves.
Very simple. if you want to support a church or place of worship spend your own money. Don’t subsidize it with a tax exempt status and take mine or others money.
How about taking politics the f*ck out of consensual sex?
You object to insurance paying for birth control due to money, but insurance would pay for the birth.
All insurance is about sharing risk over the pool of insured. Paying for birth control saves the pool money.
But is it a woman’s right of choice to abort? Who gave her that right? Did your mother have that right and did she exercise it? Are you glad she didn’t?
I don’t believe a woman has the right to abort her child, except in special cases where it endangers the mother’s immediate survival, rape and birth defects.
It’s a gut feeling, but it just feels wrong to me to murder an innocent child, regardless of religion. I would not be able to perform the abortion myself out of apprehension and guilt… or to put it more succinctly… empathy. I imagine that unborn baby as me. Likewise, I would not want to live with a person who considers it acceptable to murder an unborn child. An unborn child is full of so much potential and snuffing out a life is antithetical to my good fortune of having being born.
Hey, “d,” why don’t you spew that little gem the next time that you are facing a gun. It won’t stop the resulting “violence.”
How can you possibly believe that anyone, regardless of political affiliation, is “OK” with abortion. No one likes abortion. No one. But it is a very difficult issue and always has been. Just because you and your ilk believe that there is only one rigid solution to this issue does not mean that you have the right to force that solution on everyone else.
But I might be willing to entertain additional restrictions on abortion under the following conditions:
1) You support government sponsored access to birth control and family planning education
2) You agree to the elimination of the tax free status of all religious institutions in the U.S.
I don’t have to “spew gems” because I take responsibility for my own safety and that of my family by being armed. I willing to bet anything that you are not. You are just another typical lib who expects others to take care of them.
Everyone has access to birth control and education. If you refuse to pay for it birth control yourself, stop having sex.
Why is it that within the western world, only the in the US does the general population feel the need to arm themselves against their “neighbours”?
Please, in your response consider the purpose of sport rifles, before quoting Scandinavian and European statistics, which are not for the purpose of “personal defence” AGAINST the population, (remember that you just said that you do not have firearms for the [sole] purpose of sport, but for the [probably primary] purpose personal defence of your family).
Also the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘fact’; be careful what you quote about the Swiss and others.
We don’t arm ourselves against our neighbors, we arm ourselves against violent criminals.
We do so because we live in a free country that recognizes the right to self defense
Well, the rest of the world is thankful to the USA for falling on their collective sword and volunteering to host all the ‘violent criminals’, we enjoy living in countries without this need.
Thank you ‘D’ for living with this risk and compromising the safety of your family.
Ever thought about why this problem doesn’t really exist elsewhere? You are only 328 million of 7.42 billion, thats what, roughly 4.4% of the worlds population?
Maybe its just a severely unfortunate coincidence that you live with all the violent criminals (that can only be tolerated by owning a firearm).
Thanks for blathering about conceps far above your comprehension level.
Thanks for using the opportunity to ‘argue’ your point, to instead attempt to insult my intelligence; which has nothing to do with the argument, except for my ability to convey my position.
I’ll pose the position again in the interest of being a good sport: Why does this “problem” of needing to arm yourself against violent criminals exist in your particular western ‘civilised’ country, and not in any others such as Western Europe, Australasia, Japan…?
Actually, we arm ourselves against the possibility that our government – or, given some of the comments in this thread, our neighbors – might attempt to restrict the God-given rights RECOGNIZED, not GRANTED by the Constitution.
And also against violent criminals, and others that might threaten our rights – but mostly against those who think they know better how to run our lives than we ourselves do.
….how to run our lives than we do.
Like Apple, and this is a case in point.
IT department…..
Isn’t there supposed to be separation of church and state? Or is that just in the movies? And the constitution only grants arming against the government, not neighbours or violent criminals.
Personally: I arm myself against menacing men in the nighttime streets. Against menacing men in congress, I consider my rights of free expression, and the vote, sufficient. If another civil war looms, I could join a militia to preserve the union. Yes, I would do that even though I’m from Virginia, like Robert E. Lee, God rest his soul.
KingMel, Three times in my life I have used a gun to prevent criminals from using a gun to harm people. Each time my use of a gun did not require me to discharge my gun, but it stopped the criminal in his tracks. Criminals are often cowards and the mere presence of a gun in the hands of a good guy will stop the bad guys.
One I don’t include in those three times was one I found out about only after the fact. My shop was cased by the SLA but they decided that we were too well armed for them to hit. They came into my shop the day before they hit the Wells Fargo Bank on Fair Oaks and killed Mrs. Opsahl, . . but when they saw that I had a .45 ACP on my hip and both of my clerks were armed as well, they opted to turn around and walk out instead of holding us up. This was only learned later when survivors of the SLA were interviewed. I do remember the group, including a large black man, an Asian woman, and young white woman coming into the store, but we were totally unaware at that time that the SLA were holed up in a house only blocks away from the store I managed. That is definitely a case where the mere presence of guns prevented crime. I did not even have to pull out my gun.
I still carry concealed today, many years later. . . but my family and people I am responsible for are safer for it. If you were near me, I would be responsible for your safety as well.
Thanks but no thanks Swordmaker.
I for one do not have a blanket objection to having a weapon. Minimally though I think society should know what you’re packing and how many.
If you carry an unconcealed weapon, society obviously knows about it, and will assume you possess other such weapons. If you carry a concealed weapon, normal society will be oblivious, and criminal society will be hesitant.
I was more referring to weapons registration. You don’t need to be carrying any or all of them, but if the cops need to act they need to know what you might have.
I’m getting tired of all this censorship. This app, like it or not, does not promote violence but rather prayer? Apple needs to get this correct. If Apple rejects this app then Apple needs to reject the elicit lyrics of a vast number of songs on iTunes eer Apple Music eer whatever it is now.
Pray all you like you don’t need an app for that. Nobody is telling you how to lie your life so do the same and don’t tell others how to live theirs!
All this app does is let someone know that there is someone in need of prayer in a specific city. It names no one in particular. It rests on the fact that for Christians, if you pray, you know that God will know who needs your prayers and will answer and that person will receive the correct answer.
For me, God’s answer may mean that He will tell her to go ahead and have the abortion if the circumstances for her would be best. Sometimes we may not like God’s answers to our prayers. . . but we pray anyway trusting He knows the right thing for us.
He? You mean Most Holy Lord Tim Cook?
Amazing how big the fuss over a life being deported by the left, yet a life is destroyed and not even a word…that’s why they get no credibility on other important issues. The average Anerican is smart enough to figure that out.
Please, stop with the bullshit logical fallacies. I could easily counter with:
Amazing how big the fuss over abortion rights, but tens of thousands of lives destroyed by firearms in this country each year are ignored by the same people.
See, it is simple…and fallacious…to couple such things. Each issue, each debate must be addressed on its own merits.
If you had a brain you would use it to research the benefits of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Estimates range from the CDC’s 250,000 to criminologist’s 2million lives are saved by private citizens with guns. FAR more than innocents killed by criminals.
If you bothered to learn about what you are blathering about, you would know that private citizens kill twice the number of criminal than cops with a 5x lower error rate.
d – reference for that? I don’t believe you for one second. I think the reality is miniscule compared to your figures. Show me I’m wrong, if you can. And I mean the CDC’s actual numbers — not some Breitbart or Alex Jones rant.
A smart person would look for the information themselves
A liberal would expect others to do it for him
A smart person would expect you to back up your own words.
And someone with evidence wouldn’t hesitate to supply research to back up their claims.
And someone with solid evidence wouldn’t hesitate to supply their research.
Remember; the plural of “anecdote” is NOT “fact”.
John Smith- Here’s a quote from the CDC study that I assume “d” is referencing:
“The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998).”
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#45
Of course, not every defensive use of a firearm will necessarily mean a saved life, but this certainly shows the other side of firearms ownership- they simply are not only used criminally, and have a significant benefit as well as detriment.
anything based on figures not 20+ years old? would you like to be judged/paid based on yourself from 20+ years ago?
You are correct that the 20 yr old figures are not accurate
Given that there are many more millions of guns in the hand of law-abiding citizens the number of crimes stopped by citizens is much higher
How about the Center for Disease Control Study commissioned by President Barack Obama in 2013? There conclusion was:
“The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
The few studies Liberal Gun banners use that claim to “debunk” these defensive use studies, focus on defensive uses where the victim actually KILLS the attacker with his defensive use of a gun, which is actually fairly rare and is, in fact, an already included subset of the “gun homicide” data under justifiable homicide category.
The mere presence of a gun in the hands of a home owner, a store clerk, a child defending his/her siblings, a potential rape victims, is often enough to prevent the crime without a shot being fired. As I said above Criminals are frequently cowards.
You think that without guns that as many as two million more people would be killed every year? That’s a head-scratcher there.
I pray this is not politicaly motivated ..
Apple should stay out of politics and avoid potentially alienating a lot of peoplle.
Thats not in the best intreset of the corp. sales and shareholder !
<<>> I’m getting real tired of Silicon Valley’s progressive liberal bias. It will be their downfall.
Abortion is tomorrow’s slavery. One day everyone will look back on it and wonder how so many people could be on the wrong side of an obvious abomination.
“Abomination” is a religious freak word. I don’t need an Apple app to tell me that.
Scary topic. Could be showing how the money is made after you leave an abortion clinic… that’s just too much truth! OMG! I mean, that would be EXTREME revelation and America is NOT ready for that. I applaud Apple for their new ios11 that has completely taken my mind off of things that “just work”, like abortion clinics.
The app aside, it is wrong to call those who are anti-abortion as “pro life.” Many of these people are usually anything but pro life. They only care about the fetus before it is born…then afterwards, no healthcare, no educational assistance, no concern. They usually support a very war like stance in foreign policy, and are anti-environmentalism and don’t want any common sense gun control. Oh yeah, they also helped elect a nut job in Trump, which shows you that they are not pro life at all.
I’ll take the anti-abortion people seriously when they are completely pro life. In all fairness, some Catholics are, like the current Pope, or like Mother Theresa was. But conservative Christians are the worst hypocrites in the world, and have revealed themselves in their support of Trump.
Without knowing much more about that app, the app may belong in a madrasa whose male mulahs control women’s vaginas religiously. As someone has pointed out, it could be used to rouse irrational emotions of anti-women preachers to target family planning organiztions and limit the free speech rights of those who want to learn about how to abort.
Yes, this app seems to follow the precepts of Iranian madrasas.
It could also be called a “Harass and Bully Women App.”
@KingMe…since you changed the subject to firearms…why don’t you reduce drunk driving by taking cars away from sober drivers?
False Advertising, the app doesn’t harness the power of prayer.
And, speaking as an expert on prayer, if you need an app for it, you’re not really doing it right 🙂
lol
“power of prayer”
Yeah right. This is the reason to take it down. False advertising the App does not work. The praying is the shittiest way of doing nothing.
And using “the prayer” purely for bullying the woman.
Man up Apple (if that’s possible} and stop pandering to the left.
“”I do not like abortions and I do not know of anyone who does. But I do support a woman’s right of choice, as difficult and unpleasant as that choice may be.”
This statement from above is so sad and pathetic it would be funny were not the issue so important. It is clear that the writer truly thinks that they are being fair and open-minded. What is the issue you ask? It is when one group of people use their power to de-personalize another.
imagine someone saying, “I do not like slavery and I do not know of anyone who does. But I do support the slave holder’s right of choice, as difficult and unpleasant as that choice may be.”
Hitler decided that Jews were not persons. They were swine. In our country, people from Africa were not persons. They were property.
De-personalization is a scourge that appears throughout history and leads to murder.
Contrast de-personalization with this statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I’m not going to touch the pro-life/pro-choice thing going on here, but instead pose a different question for which I honestly don’t know the answer: does Apple really have the right to ban iOS apps based on content?
(Yes I know it may not be a content issue in this case, as we don’t have all the info, but I’m talking hypothetically here.)
On the Mac, you can get apps from elsewhere than the Mac App Store, but not on iOS. On your XBOX or PlayStation, you can get games from elsewhere than Microsoft’s or Sonys digital store. I am aware you can choose a different phone platform, but is that enough? Is the cost barrier of switching (phone plus all the apps you have to repurchase) enough of a deterrent that the iOS platform could be considered a type of monopoly, and subject to applicable regulations?
I ask this because in their own ways, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are all in a similar state: there are no REAL alternatives in each of their categories, so when I look at something like the Adpocalyps on YouTube, or the easily seen inequities of what they put on the Restricted list, I wonder a bit whether or not YouTube really has that right, even on their own platform. I generally despise government regulation of any kind, and am usually the first to say “no one is putting a gun to your head” to buy that, patronize that site, etc. But our electronic devices are such an integral part of our modern lives, and this is such a seemingly new phenomenon that social interaction is in many ways dictated (and censored) by single corporations, maybe the choice to leave is not the best one. I honestly don’t know.
Thoughts?
According to the US Supreme Court, corporations also have many of the First Amendment rights guaranteed to individuals. It would therefore be unconstitutional for the government to compel Apple, YouTube, Facebook, etc. to refrain from protected expression or to compel expression against their corporate will. Where the expression is alleged to violate non-discrimination laws, some balancing of rights may be necessary. Even so, these are not common carriers required to transmit every message that comes along.
Using the term “choice” when it comes to killing babies has always seemed strange to me. You mean a person has a “right” to kill a baby? Doesn’t make sense at all. Seems very similar to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. way of thinking. Was it Stalin who said, “It’s a crime to kill one man, but killing millions is just statistics,” or something like that. Millions of babies have been killed. When something is alive then that life is stopped, hey, that’s called killing.
I am on the side of living women such as my girlfriend who has taught me a lot about women’s suffering rather than on the side of laws mostly written by men to control women’s private parts and unborn fetusus.
As iPhone users – you and I – I recomend that you get the “How To Leave Women’s Vaginas Alone” app.
The irony is that the very people who claim to be pro life are amongst the most vocal supporters of killing muslims, criminals without trial, etc.
Apparently to a true religious zealot, a person can’t be killed until they commit their first crime, like lying in kindergarten or stealing some other brat’s lunch money or …gasp… crossing a national border as a refugee to escape a civil war.
Then it’s perfectly ok to reduce the surplus population. Ban entry, ban social services, deny healthcare funding, threaten other nations with extermination, and accelerate the arms races in all levels. That’s what Jesus would do.
What is funny is that the amount of abortions has gone down since the 70´s, 80´s and 90´s. 1990 (1,429,247) 2013 (664,435). That has gone steadily down. Bullying women with this issue should be totally banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
Well…that got ugly fast.
If a woman killed a day old infant, both the left and right would put her under the jail for the worst crime in society, but before that child was born, she can kill that life and the left gives her sympathy and compassion. See it or ignore it according to your agenda.
Do you mean Pro life as in anti-Capital Punishment?
Anti-abortionists don’t need any forum for their poison. The world is full. Good riddance to these religious lies.