Apple blocks its gay pride watch face in Russia

“Apple first introduced its pride Apple Watch face during the company’s Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in June,” Tom Warren reports for The Verge. “Inspired by the rainbow flag, it’s designed to celebrate gay pride and stand against discrimination to LGBTQ people.”

“While Apple regularly touts its ‘unwavering commitment to equality and diversity’ in highly-produced gay pride videos, the company has its limits,” Warren reports. “iOS developer Guilherme Rambo has discovered that the pride Apple Watch face is ‘hardcoded to not show up if the paired iPhone is using the Russian locale.'”

The Verge has tested this on an iPhone running the latest iOS 12 beta, and the pride watch face simply disappears once you switch to the Russian locale,” Warren reports. “Russia implemented a ‘gay propaganda’ law in 2013… [that] comes with the threat of jail time and fines for what Russia deems to be offensive speech. Apple appears to be avoiding this particular legal quandary. Apple sells a special pride edition Apple Watch strap, donating a portion of the proceeds toward LGBTQ advocacy organizations. But it doesn’t sell it in Russia, either.”

Apple’s new pride face for the Apple Watch
Apple’s new pride face for the Apple Watch

 
Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: In previous instances — where apps were removed in China, for example – Apple CEO Tim Cook has stated that Apple complies with all local laws.

SEE ALSO:
watchOS 5 adds powerful activity and communications features to Apple Watch – June 4, 2018

80 Comments

    1. there’s questioning if the “T” belongs in the LGBQ_ acroynym…therefore need for modification of “flag”.

      Gender Dysphoria’s proposed genetic reality fueled greatly/mostly by peer pressure…say nothing of above mentioned; jam, hair, smell.

      1. Thirty percent of women and 35% of men in a national study reported heterosexual anal intercourse in the past year. The conservative Family Research Council estimates the number of homosexual men as less than 3%. So, a man is at least ten to twelve times more likely to have anal sex with a woman as with a man.

        If your objection is to the act and not the orientation, where’s your outrage about that?

        1. “there’s questioning if the “T” belongs in the LGBQ_ acroynym…therefore need for modification of “flag”.

          That is the question and as is your typical MO and constant inability you CANNOT ANSWER a simple straight question. Instead, deflect to PUSH an activist liberal social justice angle.

          I find it impossible to believe a retired law enforcement official and prosecutor from the red state of Texas who claims to be a “straight white male conservative” even cares about anal sex let alone tracks statistics?!? “Will Robinson, this does note compute!”

          That’s OK, we all know you are a liberal activist and conservative FRAUD …

          1. Pathetic ideological bullshit from you.

            Your reading comprehension skills could use some work or is it just ” your typical MO and constant inability you CANNOT ANSWER a simple straight question?”

            Try grasping his point. It has nothing to do with the drivel flowing from your mouth.

        2. I wasn’t answering any question. No question was asked. I was commenting on several posters who had clearly asserted that homosexuals deserve scorn because they engage in unnatural acts like anal sex. They brought up the subject, not me.

          I responded by pointing out that at least ten to twelve times as many heterosexuals do that. If it is a sin and should be a crime for one group, why not the other? If anything that cannot lead to reproduction is “unnatural,” how about the 80% of heterosexuals who have had oral sex? When we had laws against sodomy, they covered both heterosexual and homosexual acts. How did the focus shift exclusively to gay folks?

          The answer, of course, is that the bias isn’t against what homosexuals do, but against who they are. That is the simple straight answer for a simple straight person.

          1. Deserving scorn and deserving oppressive laws do not go hand in hand.

            Personally, I do not scorn homose urals any more or less than discreet heterosexuals.

            As far as the law goes, I have no right to impose my will upon consenting adults. It doesn’t matter what I think.

            1. by the company you keep applecynic. Every time there’s a comment thread like this one you reveal who you are by not standing up to your pals that are spewing hate.

            2. That is a weak response. When someone in your community says something hateful you need to say something about it directly to them. Culture is what changes people, not laws. If you don’t say anything you are part of the problem. You tell people they are wrong about what they think about Apple constantly. You can’t do the same to your pals spewing hate against the LGBTQ community? Or are you too afraid they wouldn’t like you then? Coward.

            3. I’ll tell you what…

              Even though I agree with what you say, go eff yourself you self righteous twit! If you cared about causes you might speak up about Apple’s censorship that impacts users both gay and straight.

              This is a legal topic, not a sociopolitical one.

            4. Responding to “You define yourself:”

              Jesus Christ, the son of God, your saviour defined Himself by the company He kept; He kept the company of prostitutes, thieves, and profoundly sick folks, and look what he achieved! He saved your soul. And he accomplished all this even before the iPhone came on the scene.

            5. @ John Dingler, apologies for the late reply.

              “Jesus Christ, the son of God, your saviour defined Himself by the company He kept; He kept the company of prostitutes, thieves, and profoundly sick folks, and look what he achieved!”

              The difference is Jesus wasn’t a coward who kept silent in the face of hatred and injustice. He didn’t let his pals spew hatred because he was afraid of offending them.

          2. “there’s questioning if the “T” belongs in the LGBQ_ acroynym…therefore need for modification of “flag”.

            Let’s try this for the last time. The above statement was posted by Because of Brown U Study on Friday, August 31, 2018 at 2:11 pm.

            Your response did not address the question. OK, so it is not a question, rather a statement or opinion. Only anal artful dodgers care so much about such trivial minor details.

            Not interested in your hundred tedious paragraphs off topic deflections. Pull up the big boy pants and for once, respond directly and accordingly to the statement. That straight up and plain enough for you? …

            1. As you point out, it was not a question. It was a statement or opinion. It is not being an artful dodger to not answer a question that was never asked. I did reply to the sentence about “jam, hair, smell,” because it seemed like singling out gay sex for criticism. That was what took us off the topic of Apple Watch faces, not my reply.

              I cannot reply to a statement (not a question) about a Brown U study that I have never heard of before without doing a bunch of research to find an otherwise unidentified article in an unidentified journal, read it, review the related academic literature, and write my reply. I didn’t feel like doing all that for something that was off-topic anyway.

              Still don’t, but I guess I’ll make the effort in case this ever comes up again. Don’t expect a reply before this thread goes dead.

            2. “It is not being an artful dodger to not answer a question that was never asked.“

              Oh, so that leaves you off the hook. The problem is that is the main point of the post you responded to USER.

              Now pay very close attention, you did not address the post in anyway, shape or form. Instead, you injected your liberal activist agenda.

              When are you going to learn to respond properly to what is posted, and more importantly, answer straight honest questions, hmmm?

              Constantly your responses are off topic, deflective, tedious volumes of words and opinions that miss the mark.

              Thank you in advance for not responding further, it just wastes our time …

            3. I believe I have identified the article in question. It didn’t take as long as I expected. Cite:

              Lisa Litman (2018), “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports,” PLOS ONE 13(8): e0202330.

              First note: PLOS (Public Library of Science) is not a traditional academic journal. It is “peer-reviewed,” but only for things like grammatical errors, math mistakes, and misquotations. Otherwise, it will accept anything an author wishes to submit. The editors do not make any effort to determine if the article makes sense in the context of current science. The rapid publication of controversial articles is the whole point of the “open journal” model. Rather than depend on subscription revenue, PLOS charges the authors $1495 for publishing their article. It could be regarded as a vanity press for academics who need to publish or perish.

              Second note: According to the Abstract in PLOS, the research was sparked by a number of parents who reported in online forums that their children had rapidly and unexpectedly developed gender dysphoria (unpleasant feelings about being one’s current gender) with a subsequent announcement of being transgendered, and that this had typically followed a period of interaction with other transgendered persons in person or online.

              The research was conducted by posting a link to a SurveyMonkey on three websites where such parental postings had appeared and asking readers to pass the link along to other parents who might be interested. No real effort was made to collect data from anybody other than 256 self-selected parents who had already stated their agreement with the hypothesis that the research was supposedly testing. Oddly enough, the research “confirmed” the hypothesis.

              Third note: The author’s academic institution, Brown University, has expressly disavowed the article. They have no particular quarrel with the underlying data that persons who announce they are transgendered quite frequently do so after extensive interactions with other transgendered persons in person or online. The problem is with the article’s (and the parents’) implication that the causality runs from the interactions to the announcement. Most transgendered individuals claim that they first identified an issue, then explored it with others, and finally announced a conclusion. They deny any undue influence.

              The author (and the parents who are her only source) seem to be saying the reverse, that the young person would never have perceived an issue in the first place had it not been for the outside influence. The university feels that the conclusion is not supported by the data and in fact contradicts the stated experience of almost all transgendered persons.

            4. So, you are totally obsessed with anal sex, transgenders and gay politics ad nauseam. That is just wonderful for a self described straight conservative. Yeah, right …

            5. GeoB, the only reason I have been posting so much on this subject is in a futile effort to meet YOUR urgent demands to answer the following non-question:

              “Because of Brown U study there’s questioning if the ‘T’ belongs in the LGBQ_ acronym … therefore need for modification of flag. Gender dysphoria’s proposed genetic reality mostly/greatly fueled by peer pressure.”

              I find it exceedingly unlikely that either you or the original poster have actually read the study in question. For one thing, the study does not say that.

              I have read it, and all it claims is that less than two hundred adolescents and young adults who rather suddenly announced that they are transgendered have had an increased number of contacts with other transgendered individuals in the run up to their announcement. It does not claim that peer pressure fueled the announcements, although that might be the implication. The kids may just have been seeking additional information about being transgendered from those best positioned to provide it.

              More fundamentally, the study is garbage. The sole source of data is a self-selected group of 256 parents who were so upset when their kids came out that they complained about it on public websites. Does that sound like an objective source? They sound more like parents who are looking for someone—anyone but themselves—to blame.

              There is no showing that their children were representative of transgendered people generally. Most of the young people described in the study were 16-17 year old genetic females who had already come out as lesbian BEFORE they had the discussions that led them to believe they were actually men attracted to women rather than women attracted to women. That does not sound like a reliable sample to me. It certainly does not suggest that any teenagers who are comfortable in their birth gender are being seduced by peer pressure into switching their gender assignment.

              There is nothing more to be said on this subject.

            6. I have rarely seen the kind of beatdown that TxUser just laid upon you GoeB. That was epic, leaving you gasping on the floor “Buh buh deflecting… gah gah not answering… ow ow obsessing”. This is one for the ages to be sure.

            7. If GeoB had not asked a question, I would ignore him, but I don’t want to be accused of deflection or being an artful dodger.

              “At this point, why should I or anyone else care?”

              I don’t expect him to care, but there still are some Americans who are more interested in the truth than in paranoid xenophobia. Liars and scoundrels should not be permitted a free hand to shape an alternate truth that by frequent repetition replaces reality.

              As a Christian, I might say, “It does matter whether we follow the Cross or the Twisted Cross. They are not the same, and the difference is perhaps more important than the difference between life and death.”

            8. “I don’t expect him to care, but there still are some Americans who are more interested in the truth than in paranoid xenophobia.”

              The only thing I am interested in is the absolute truth. Not liberal truth and certainly not politically correct. Also not half truths from USER or the mainstream media.

              “Liars and scoundrels should not be permitted a free hand to shape an alternate truth that by frequent repetition replaces reality.”

              Now we totally agree. Bill and Hillary should be in JAIL …

          3. I love that you use degenerate heterosexuals (most of them leftists no doubt) as your defense of degenerate LGBTQII+Pedophiles.

            As if we don’t scorn degenerate heterosexuals as vociferously.

            If Hell doesnt exist, we will make one on earth for you to go to.

            1. What 80% of the population are you referring to?

              As is your usual style, you are incapable of speaking in plain English and clear communication to say what you mean specifically. You BAIT the readers here constantly with generalized inference statements. It’s old …

            2. Translation for those not blessed with English literacy:

              “Expatriate” stated that anybody who engages in nonprocreative sex (oral or anal) with a person of the opposite gender is a degenerate heterosexual who should burn in Hell just like those (3% or so of the population) who engage in homosexual deviant sex.

              I asked whether he really thinks that the 80% of adult Americans who have had heterosexual oral sex or the third of Americans (35% of men, 30% of women) who have had heterosexual anal sex are damned.

              I then suggested that he might want to move someplace where such degeneracy is illegal, like Russia (although Iran would work as well).

              Is further clarification really necessary, Tovarich?

            3. “Translation for those not blessed with English literacy.”

              Awwwhhh, what a cute, snide, elitist, know it all put down. Did posting that make you feel good?

              But you finally explained yourself after wasting posts and our time talking in ABBREVIATED code.

              Learn brevity and clarity of communication without VOLUMES of needless words. But I am smart enough to know you will double down and could not care less. The following writer’s quote sums it ALL up.

              “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

              — Mark Twain

            1. Hey GoeB,
              Ever notice that hardly anyone here likes you and that you receive little to no stats? Are you so dense that you cannot understand this? Let me spell it out for you ignorant moron,
              NO-ONE-LIKES-YOU.
              You are even beyond pity as one would give an intellectually challenged child. You are merely tiresome….go away.

            2. Hey Buster, obviously you are not paying attention. For the record:

              When you speak the truth it is not important to be liked. I don’t expect you to understand.

              “receive little to no stats?”
              Ever notice the “stats” ratings are manipulated? As I have posted dozens of times, could not care less about dishonest voting. You really have to suffer from low self esteem to care about such TRIVIAL things. I’m not running for class President, get a grip.

              “Let me spell it out for you ignorant moron,
              NO-ONE-LIKES-YOU.”

              What an EGO, you speak FOR EVERYONE?!?!?! Now the ad hominem attacks and insults, HOW MATURE. That all you got?

              “You are even beyond pity as one would give an intellectually challenged child.”

              NO, I’m smarter than the average bear and last thing I am looking for is “pity” or acceptance from the batsh*t LEFT.

              “You are merely tiresome….go away”

              YOU FIRST …

      1. If the journal is such a cluster as mentioned, why all the professional kick-back. Research gets posted and professionals in the field read/respond. That’s what happening. This is a new topic…no wonder.

        A former Dean of Harvard Medical School, called Brown’s removal of the article; “anti-intellectual” and “completely antithetical to academic freedom,” and said he found it “horrifying” that Brown failed to defend Littman (primary researcher).”

        “Brown expressly disavowed the article”! Please stop with the wind-bagging professorial sounding barley sandwiches with a slice of hubris. Brown said NO such thing. They plan to look into the “research design and collection methods.” They were also concerned the paper “could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.” Neither are acts of disavowing. The 2nd reason is truly anti-intellectual.

        Nothing you stated above mentioned anything about the former, or latter. You did imply the bias of the researcher, but said nothing of the overwhelming biased energy from the people in, or supporting the trans community that oppose the paper. That’s curious.

        But you did want us to know:
        “nothing more to said, the study is garbage,”

        Are you a psychologist, a professional in Public Health, as researcher in matters of gender or did you become one in your quick perusal of the topic? The paper has wrought a conversation amongst the field of pros, which you’re not a part, so please step off your high horse and let them make the determination…at least one that’s brings education and experience with their bias.

        1. I’m sorry, but I’m not inclined to go away so my betters can discuss matters that are just too complicated for poor ignorant high-horse fools like me who got a degree in the social sciences nearly fifty years ago and have kept up with them ever since. Just because I have designed surveys myself, that doesn’t mean that I’m competent to tell the difference between a serious research project intended to expand human knowledge and one that just collects anecdotal evidence from people who were selected to represent a single point of view. /s

          Beyond that limited value, the study is methodologically problematic, which is why Brown has withdrawn its endorsement while it is investigating further. The article was not “censored.” It is just as available on PLOS ONE as it ever was. All that was removed is the link on the university website. It is hardly “horrifying” for Brown not to defend Littman while its review is still underway. Institutional loyalty should not stretch to defending something before you know it is worth defending. Demanding intellectual rigor is not “anti-intellectual.”

          It is just icing on the cake that the second-hand stories from the parents contradict the first-hand accounts of virtually every transgendered person that anybody has ever heard from. Taking account of their experience is no more biased than taking account of eyewitness testimony in any other case.

          Worse, there were “experts” already citing the Littman article as evidence that young people questioning their sexuality should not be allowed to interact with counsellors, support groups, and others who are sympathetic to their concerns, but only with the defenders of traditional gender roles. Being concerned with that use of dubious research is hardly “truly anti-intellectual.” It is being responsible.

    2. Hey Jr! Is Sr as unabashedly homophobic as you are? I’m no longer amazed by the amount of hate and ignorance that commenters on this site spew (and star). Why do you find it necessary to make such a comment? I guess it’s pretty easy to hate from behind your computer screen. Remember, Be Best, Jr.

      1. If I don’t chose to embrace communism, am I commie-phobic?

        It’s not at all descriptive…it’s more accusation. Accusations are based on a mindset that only communicates “the other” doesn’t share your view. It’s lazy communication.

        1. REALLY dumb comparison.

          People who strongly believe in a political or religious ideology want others to believe in it too. Many will be active and trying, through discussion or military action, to “convert” others.

          Gay people aren’t trying to convert you or anyone. They just want equal human rights that aren’t nullified because of what they do at home… any more than you should be denied basic rights because you play golf or drive a Chevy.

          1. False. It is an agenda to subvert western civilization at every level.

            This is what the Christians did to the Roman Empire to eventually become the Catholic Church.

            Subvert from within, use the power structure and institutions and infrastructure against itself.

            Go back to hell, comrade.

  1. No hate at all, that’s all on you Marty, you’re quite comfortable labeling people aren’t you. Just the facts, right. People are also allowed to judge behaviors, and have an opinion, It seems its always those looking for tolerance who are the least tolerant, and when you look more closely, you’ll usually see that their desires are actually just selfish wants.
    By all means, Have at it, Buy your watch! Wear it proudly!

  2. This whole thread makes me feel uncomfortable whenever a guy stands behind me in any lineups.
    BTW, why does the CEO of mega-company have to constantly inject his own gay agenda into Apple products? I understand that it is an important issue as a society, but when a CEO started using his company platform to advance this agenda at the expense of our money, then I have to wonder if it’s ethical. Tim, pls go somewhere else and do this as much as you want with your own money, will you?

        1. No clue what your objection is…
          Apple is a buisness , a public company…..in it for the profit.
          And it is One of the most profitable…..if not the most…
          What did CEO do at the expense of your money ?

          227.84 close… you unhappy ?

          1. My objection is already explained in my post. Just too may SJW agenda popping up in Apple. I am totally sure that all other decent companies care about various social issues. I just think they do it in much better and more effective ways.
            And it has nothing to do with the business itself. Raising one’s head in every social justice agenda, using the business platform is not a norm. Usually, for promoting major social agenda in one’s product requires the consultation with shareholders. It’s not CEO’s arbitrary decision. Anyway, enough people complained in the past in this forum on Tim’s SJW attitude getting too much. There are far more important social agenda that poking his head into boy’s/girls’ toilet issue etc.

            1. “enough people complained in the past in this forum on Tim’s SJW attitude getting too much”

              The complainers bring it up way, way, way more ofter that Cook says anything about such issues. His statements are, in fact, infrequent.

            2. +1 to what Sean replied ..
              Also My question to you is regarding this article… what about it prompted you to write what you did…?
              How did the CEOs personsl Agenda effect your money….

              He did exactly what you like to see…. …. something which i believe is against his personal preference !

              Again , mind you…. 227+ close..
              You consider that to be an achievement at the expense of your money ??

            3. Kenny – You come here for the same reason the rest of them do – They let you say whatever you want no matter how hateful, vile, racist, liberal, conservative or full of shit it may be.

              You ever notice how many of them like Botvinik & 2016 or whatever that turd’s moninker is only show up for right wing political raving or hating homosexuals? They know management will stand by silently as long as you guys keep clicking. SJW? Haha, that gotten as tired as the liberal who used rant and rave about Bush all 8 years of Obama. You guys are all the same and that has nothing to do with your politics. Scared, little threatened boys.

              Your little rationalization and justification backstepping is really weak. Just own it

            4. “only show up for right wing political raving or hating homosexuals?”

              Bald faced lie!!! You should be ashamed!!

              Accurate statement: michaele11111 ONLY SHOWS UP to defend liberals lying and behaving badly …

    1. You should read the article.

      “why does the CEO of mega-company have to constantly inject his own gay agenda into Apple products? “

      If you read the article, or even the headline, you’d realize that this is about removing a product despite his so called “gay agenda”.

      “when a CEO started using his company platform to advance this agenda at the expense of our money”

      You’re commenting on an article about a product that was designed because there was a market for it. People wanted the LGBTQ bands and faces and Apple delivered them.

      Apple is realizing that having the band/face in Russia poses significant legal risks have decided to remove the option for that locale.

      Elsewhere, it’s still serving a market demand, which Apple seems to be doing quite well… at least better than any other publicly traded company.

      “This whole thread makes me feel uncomfortable whenever a guy stands behind me in any lineups.”

      It’s ok. Give in to your temptation… or don’t. Apple will support you as best as they can either way. That’s what this is all about.

    1. As I pointed out above, it isn’t “just as many.” It is ten or twelve times as many. If nonprocreative sex is sinful, why pick on the homosexual minority? When sodomy and buggery were crimes, the act was just as illegal when committed with a woman (even one’s own wife) as with a man. In many jurisdictions, sex between two women was not specifically illegal, except under a general prohibition of “unnatural acts” that also included heterosexual anal and oral sex. The National Institutes of Health confirms that about 30% of Americans aged 15-44 have had anal sex and something over 80% have had oral. Under the moral argument against male homosexuals, why aren’t all those other perverts in Reading Gaol, too?

        1. For the benefit of our Russian-speaking readers, let me rephrase my answer:

          No, heterosexual men are not demanding acceptance of their sex acts. Why? Because they already have acceptance of their sex acts. (If you doubt that, please provide evidence that men who have “unnatural” relations with their wives are facing criticism.) Homosexual men do not have general acceptance of the very same acts (see numerous posts in this thread), so they are demanding it.

          You may have noted that white men in the South were not staging sit-ins in the 1960s to demand the right to eat at lunch counters where they were already welcome. Black people were demanding something they did not have. Men were not holding rallies in the 1910s to demand the right to vote; women were doing that because they could not vote.

          1. “You may have noted that white men in the South were not staging sit-ins in the 1960s to demand the right to eat at lunch counters where they were already welcome. Black people were demanding something they did not have. Men were not holding rallies in the 1910s to demand the right to vote; women were doing that because they could not vote.”

            Proof positive the master of deflection is incapable of staying on topic. Ridiculous “whataboutisms” of comparing white men men of today to the 1960s civil rights struggles to excuse an earlier erroneous self serving comment.

            The topic brainless, is Apple gay pride products in Russia that have been banned and Apple doing nothing to upset the flow of cash, same as being banned in other nations. Please try to keep up …

            1. Yes, that is the topic. It is your buddies whom you are defending that brought up the subject of gay men being nasty because they engage in anal sex. That then became the topic. Please keep up.

              I replied that many more heterosexual men engage in the same practice, so it is illogical to single out homosexuals. Nobody ever responded to that or answered the implied question as to why the two cases are different. I did not whine about that or insult you and your butt-obsessed buddies.

              An anonymous poster then asked if heterosexual men were demanding public acceptance of their sexual practices? I answered the question without deflection: no, because they already have it. I gave other examples of groups that did not demand what they already had. Once he had asked that question, that became the topic. Please keep up.

            2. “ I did not whine about that or insult you and your butt-obsessed buddies.”

              You LIE!!! I don’t have “ butt-obsessed buddies.” If anyone is “ butt-obsessed” it is YOU with your constant reposting of the SAME anal sex statistics.

              Please try to keep up …

  3. OK, OK, perhaps my dislike of TC came out too strongly overshadowing other related issues or even a main issue. (But LGBTQ colour as a watch face in the first place? Still resisting, hahaha)
    Now, am I forgiven? 🙂

  4. After reading all the posts that mostly agree or disagree with an Apple gay activist agenda, the overall point is missed.

    Apple does conform to laws in countries they do business in, good and understood.

    But obviously a gay activist agenda in Russia encountered resistance with little recourse but to accept censorship to keep the almighty dollars flowing.

    Cook knows the right side of bread that the butter is on. Same as China and India. The USA allows this activism proof positive of a great republic …

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.