Apple has withdrawn an app created by Andrew Tate after accusations that it encouraged misogyny and could be an illegal pyramid scheme.

Tate created the app, Real World Portal, after the closure of his “Hustler’s University”, which was an online academy for his fans, promising to assist them in making thousands of pounds while helping Tate’s videos on social media, which have been described as misogynistic, to go viral.

McCue Jury & Partners, the firm representing four British women who have accused Tate of sexual and physical assault, claimed that the app deliberately targets young men and encourages misogyny, including members of the app sharing techniques on how to control and exploit women. The firm has also claimed that there is evidence to suggest that the app is an illegal pyramid scheme, with members being charged $49.99 a month to join.

Last week, the Real World Portal app was removed from Google’s Play store after claims that it was an illegal pyramid scheme and encouraged misogyny.

On Friday night Apple also said it had removed it from its app store. It followed a letter from the legal firm asking Apple to consider whether the app was in line with its policies and whether the company was exposing itself to any corporate liability in hosting it on its platform.

Part of the letter, dated 15 September, said: “We are writing because our clients are extremely concerned that you are hosting Tate’s Real World Portal (RWP) mobile application on your Apple Store … In continuing to host RWP, not only is Apple potentially indirectly financing Tate’s alleged criminal activities but is aiding the spread of his misogynistic teachings.”

The firm had claimed that Apple was directly profiting from hosting the app, with the company taking 30% in royalties from apps and in-app purchases.

Four women in their late 20s and early 30s are pursuing civil proceedings against Tate over alleged offences between 2013 and 2016 while he was still living in the UK.

Before the news that Apple had withdrawn the app, Matt Jury, the lawyer representing the women, said: “Andrew and [his brother] Tristan Tate manipulate their significant online following to promote subscriptions to Real World Portal. From there, the benefits to users are entirely reliant upon new subscribers joining the platform.

“There is also significant evidence that this scheme is directly targeting boys and teenagers and, in my view, is nothing more than an exploitative app which has no place on Apple’s platform.”

Tate is awaiting trial in Romania on charges of human trafficking. He and Tristan were charged in June, along with two Romanian female suspects, with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women. The suspects have denied the allegations.

A spokesperson for Andrew Tate said: “We unequivocally deny the allegations that ‘The Real World’ app operates as a pyramid scheme or perpetuates harmful techniques aimed at exploiting any individuals, particularly women. The user community, which includes a significant number of women within the 200,000-strong user base, can attest to the positive impact and educational value the app provides.

“Accusations suggesting otherwise are unfounded, lacking credible evidence, and seem to be part of a targeted campaign against Andrew Tate, a known supporter and promoter of the platform. ‘The Real World’ maintains a commitment to complete transparency, ensuring compliance with all legal and ethical standards. We invite sceptics to examine the app independently and affirm that it operates in accordance with legal and moral requirements.

“The platform is designed as an educational tool that fosters healthy habit formation, financial literacy, and self-discipline, with thousands of lives positively impacted. The decision by Google Play is being appealed.”

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    74
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sounds like these guys should be looking at progressive web apps, if their being de-platformed from the app stores, PWAs are the only way to go. App stores cannot block progressive web apps, unless they remove the browser from the phone. So if you have a web browser you can use a PWA

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app

    Not to mention it saves on development time, you just build a good progressive web app and it works on all platforms.

    For people who don’t have experience with progressive web apps, Voyager the Lemmy client is a progressive web app. You visit it in a browser, and you can install the app locally from the browser itself. So the app runs in the browser locally. They’re pretty cool.

      • nxfsi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t care about deplatforming until Elon banned me on Twitter for dunking on him

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        53
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t support them at all. I don’t believe in their cause. I don’t believe in their messaging.

        Philosophically I’m against all de-platforming, and I’m pointing out that if you want to prevent yourself from being deplatformed, you have to liberate yourself from app stores which have strong opinions.

        So I will provide deplatforming advice to anyone, for any reason, because I believe everyone should have a voice.

        On a practical level, it’s the detestable people who demonstrate de-platforming the most often, so we get practical examples with the evil people. Today it’s the misogynistic sociopaths, but tomorrow it could be de-platforming of end-to-end encryption in the UK and removal from all the app stores. My comments would remain just as relevant.

        • Nythos@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          57
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Racists, sexists and homophobes do not deserve a platform from which they can continue to spew their vitriol.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            48
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I respectfully disagree, if we think speech is a human right, it has to be for everyone, or it’s for no one.

            Let’s not forget each one of the classes (ethnic minorities, women’s liberation, non cis sexual identities) you mentioned in your post, started off as a censored minority in society, and it’s taken time, and open platforms for their message to get out there and normalize. If we create tools, and normalize silencing people in the minority, it’ll be hard for the next minority group to gain their equality in society. Or at least it will slow it down massively

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                28
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying their causes of equal merit, but I am saying women’s liberation started as a minority position in society, heavily censored, not provided a platform to speak on. They were extremely unpopular.

                By creating open platforms, that anyone can use, we don’t have to rely on the people in power allowing voices to be heard. People’s voices can participate, and survive by their own merits.

                Every struggle in society, with a equality especially, starts with secret message passing, secret organization, finding a voice. We need to keep the pathways open so that repressed people can have a voice. Unfortunately that means opinions we don’t agree with, as well as opinions we do agree with.

                  • jet@hackertalks.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    33
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Then I look forward to a court, following due process, putting a media gag order on them taking down their web presence.

                    It shouldn’t be left up to the whims of private organizations, to remove somebody from the public discourse.

            • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I respectfully disagree, if we think speech is a human right, it has to be for everyone, or it’s for no one.

              This is where everyone gets it wrong. Can you say anything you want? Sure, I suppose so. But there are CONSEQUENCES for what you say. One of those consequences is that a particular bit of speech is frowned upon at best, and made illegal at worst. It would be totally fine to yell “Bomb,” on an airplane if there was never a bomb on an airplane, and never would be. But there has been, and there probably will be again, so you can’t yell that without CONSEQUENCES. The consequences that these asshats are facing for their particular brand of bullshit is that they are being silenced, because they should not be saying the things that they are. Plain and simple. Is speech a right? Sure, until it’s abused, and then the rights of the many override the right to speech of the few.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree with you, and in your examples I would expect the consequences to come from the judiciary after following due process publicly.

                I would not expect the gas company, the electrical company, the water company to turn off utilities for the person who yelled bomb on an airplane. I would expect a court to hand down a decision to rectify that situation.

                For our erstwhile plane enthusiast, I would expect them to still get basic utilities even though they’re unpopular. And I would defend their right to have water power and gas Even though they’re a social pariah.

                Because Apple, and Google are guardians of the public square on phones, which is how most people use the internet anyway, I think it’s reasonable to point out that progressive web apps are way to survive deplatforming for any organization.

                • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  17
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No one has a right to make an app, let alone have that app published by a third party company that has a responsibility to their shareholders, the public, and the government. By your definition, CSAM should be allowed on the app store until a judge orders it to be taken down… That’s not how the internet works, and you know it. The internet is about moderation–self, and imposed. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Reddit, Lemmy, and millions of others must rely on self moderation first, and then impose moderation if that fails. Then, and only then, when moderation at the app/website level fails, do these go to court to get at the root of the problem. I’m sorry that you feel moderation infringes on your right to free speech, but seriously, you have the most paper thin arguments for it.

                  • jet@hackertalks.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    14
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I must have missed a communicated, I apologize. I do not expect Apple or Google to host anybody’s app at all. They’re allowed their own opinions.

                    This is why I pointed out progressive web apps as an alternative to using app stores for deployment.

                    I agree with your position

            • Eheran@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I hope we agree that we don’t want them to ever normalize again. Just like there need to be rules to prevent people from tricking others, there need to be rules to prevent the spread of hatred that we know(!) leads to millions of innocents getting killed.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I respectfully disagree, if we think speech is a human right, it has to be for everyone, or it’s for no one.

              Let’s say you own a cafe with an open mic night. One day, someone comes in to the open mic night and starts yelling racist slogans and repeating Nazi rhetoric.

              You can let them continue because you’re a free speech absolutist, and lose your customers, or you can kick him out.

              There is no difference between this and what Apple or YouTube does except for scale.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I agree with you. And I’m not saying Apple, or YouTube or wrong for deplatforming them.

                I am pointing out people in this position can take advantage of an open internet to still have a platform for their voice that does not rely on gatekeepers.

                So in your example, I kick them out of my club, and they decide to open their own club. That’s their business not my business. That would be the end of my interaction with them

            • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, I’ll try to explain the issue with that. Do I have the right to pay someone to kill you? No. Then there’s already a limitation on my speech AND use of private property. How can we reconcile that with free speech? By thinking about why free speech or any human rights matters. I could go on a dissertation here, but I’ll skip what is easy to find online anyway and jump to the conclusion: human rights are positive rights that are intended to protect human dignity (in the philosophical sense of the indivisible and equal worth of all human life), so it follows that free speech only applies to speech that doesn’t go against that goal. If you don’t do this exercise you end up with the Paradox of Tolerance and all human rights crumble like a house of cards.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                18
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right, and in society we have more or less agreed that the people who can exclude somebody’s speech, or make speech disappear, is the judiciary following due process. Private companies are not the judiciary.

                So if a court puts a gag order on this organization saying they can’t have an internet presence, that’s fine.

                In your example, hiring a hitman against me, I would expect a court to enact protection order, and perhaps even a gag order on yourself. Then I would expect platforms online to honor that gag order if you were to post anyway.

                If a private company, took it upon themselves to deplatform you without a court order, I would disagree with thatz even though your speech is against me. I hold this principle very highly, even when it’s against my own individual personal interests, because I want a stable society more than anything else.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  A stable society is not one where you can go to all of your neighbors and tell them a random person is a pedophile in order to start a mob in the name of free speech.

                  A stable society is not one where you can walk into a Walmart and start yelling the N-word but not get kicked out in the name of free speech.

                  A stable society is not one where you can sexually harass a co-worker without repercussions in the name of free speech.

                  You don’t want a stable society, you want chaos.

                  • jet@hackertalks.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    13
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I agree with your individual examples, but I would say a stable society is where any crazy crank can open a newsletter and mail it to people who subscribe to it. And the post office doesn’t get in the way of that. Without a court order.

                • Skies5394@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Private company’s policy isn’t dictated by anything but what can make them more money, which is by and large public opinion.

                  Public opinion is that this guy and his ilk are cunts and don’t deserve a platform.

                  Where your argument falls apart in the internet age, public policy or private policy, is that it’s so easy for this ooze, this tar, this black filth to fill into dark crevasses, one’s you don’t think of, don’t imagine, because they are naturally borne of their time. We don’t have time to even make public policy before they happen and become problems.

                  We have things like incel communities because these people feel lost, and have banded together to feel some sort of connection because of their joint feelings, but these feelings have a negative direction that leads to them being deeply troubling.

                  In a normal community these would be nipped in the bud because it wouldn’t travel very far without negative reaction, but with the internet people can find their pockets, positive and negative, and relish in those communities, for better or for worse.

                  So because a natural word of mouth community can’t rid the spread of these ideals, and our systems of governance, especially internationally, can’t keep up with them, we’re supposed to just let them spread because the internet has this new electric borne free speech?

                  If the idea can’t stand the germination through natural lifecycles, then why does it deserve to stand an unnatural one?

                  And so I posit, why does a private entity need to wait for a public one to make a decision, when the general public at large has already made it.

                  • jet@hackertalks.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    10
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I must have miscommunicated earlier, I do not believe Apple or Google should be required to host anybody’s applications. They’re private entities and they’re allowed their private opinions.

                    I brought up progressive web apps as a way for de-platformed organizations to side step app stores completely.

                    To borrow an analogy, I would not expect a grocery store to be compelled to carry a conspiracy theory journal, but I would expect the post office to have no opinions about mailing that journal to subscribers.

            • GreenMario@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              He can make his own website. Look up LAMP and get to work. You can’t actually be deplatformed from the entire internet so this argument is moot.

        • t0m5k1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Whilst I understand your point Iggy/miles sonkin the defacto leader is on record of saying the following when talking of treatment of women:

          Let’s not kid ourselves this is Pavlovian conditioning!

          I can’t see why anyone would allow them to retain access to anyplatform.

          Looks like a cult, acts like a cult, it is a cult!

          • Wet Noodle@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            “I’m not saying they deserve a platform, they deserve a web app” - jet the absolute doofus

        • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, both sides should be heard.

          One sides says that women should be able live without being in constant fear of assault and harassment, and the other says that women are pieces of meat , to be used and thrown away.

          Both have equal merit, and should definitely be in public discourse.

        • spitfire@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          The huge problem with everyone shifting from Reddit is there is the echo chamber and hive mind is going to build back up with it. Most people can’t seem to be nuanced enough to appreciate your comment because they’re seething so much over who the subject is. Liberty is deserved amongst all, not just those you agree with.

          • xkforce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You know what? I am fine with a hive mind that collectively decided nazis should be punched and andrew human trafficker tate should be deplatformed.

            • spitfire@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sounds like you’re on par with the nazis yourself there buddy. Keep advocating violence and censorship 🤌

                • spitfire@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  16
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lol way to rebuttal yourself. Truth is, you’re no different. But hey, I’m an ancapper, I must be fucked up for thinking every individual has the same rights. 🙄

                  Also, legitimate question here…what has Andrew Tate factually done that makes him a Nazi and/or fascist?

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            Appreciate your post. I find it incredibly ironic too, because the fediverse, and Lemmy specifically are open platforms designed exactly against deplatforming as well.

            We are all communicating on the platform designed exactly for this scenario. I appreciate that people are going to react and have their own strong opinions, but we’re standing on the foundation of freedom that extends to everyone.

            • Nate Cox@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The fediverse (Lemmy included) deplatforms people all the time; it’s called defederation and it’s built into the core of the architecture.

              Even platforms built on openness, such as Lemmy, understand the need to not provide a platform to violence, bigotry, and exploitation.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                1 year ago

                In the sense that an organization can run their own Lemmy instance, even if other people don’t connect to that instance. It censorship resistance. An isolated let me instance still works. They have their platform.

                Just like IP routing can survive many routers being destroyed, Lemmy can survive many people disagreeing with each other. That’s what I mean by open, censorship proof, deep platform proof.

                People defederating from each other is a feature, and I totally agree with it.

            • ChapolinColoradoNZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re being reasonable. That doesn’t fly here my friend.

              “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
              Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 1906

    • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Should the service providers that host PWAs and their databases be forced to serve them if their content violates their policies?

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, as private companies they can have AUPs.

        But if you view internet service providers, as common carriers, i.e. telecommunition utilities - then yes they should be forced to, unless it’s illegal.

        But let’s say the unpopular app is self hosting its own website, serving its own PWA from its own servers, as long as there isn’t a court order, I don’t think utilities should shut them down.

        • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          But if you view internet service providers, as common carriers, i.e. telecommunition utilities - then yes they should be forced to, unless it’s illegal.

          Forced to how exactly? This isn’t forcing a company to provide water for an individual, this is forcing a company to provide non-essential services to a business.

          Can the provider raise prices? Can they change their contract? Are they forced to provide these services in perpetuity?

          But let’s say the unpopular app is self hosting its own website, serving its own PWA from its own servers, as long as there isn’t a court order, I don’t think utilities should shut them down.

          Oh, that would be great actually, I hope they do that.

          That way, they’ll get doxed within 5.2 seconds of the app going live and everybody will know the people on the app.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you view them as private companies, then they can have opinions and they can’t be forced.

            If you view them as utilities, like the water company and the power company, then they have to be forced to provide equal services for equal pay to all people.

            It’s up to you to decide which internet infrastructure counts as utility, there’s a lot of debate around that.

            I would also like them to self host. I’m not sure they’d get doxed, we know it’s Andrew Tate after all, but they would get DDoSed. Plus his fans tend to be the kind of people who tell you they’re his fans. And they follow him on social media. They’re not exactly hiding

            • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you view them as utilities, like the water company and the power company, then they have to be forced to provide equal services for equal pay to all people.

              To businesses too? Are water and power companies forced to provide services to any and all businesses?

              I’m not sure they’d get doxed, we know it’s Andrew Tate after all, but they would get DDoSed.

              Well, I assume he’s not the only one to participate on his forum or website.

              Plus his fans tend to be the kind of people who tell you they’re his fans.

              I’m not concerned about the ones that do, I’m concerned about the ones that don’t.

              They’re not exactly hiding

              But you wouldn’t know about the ones hiding, because they would be… hiding.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Public Utilities are required to provide services to the public without discrimination, or personal agenda. That is why they are utilities.

                Scenario:

                1. Power company decided it wouldn’t power specific religious buildings because they disagree with that faith

                2. Telephone company refuses to install telephone lines to black owned businesses

                3. Trash company refuses to pick up trash of Democrat election office

                4. ISP refuses to provide service to local pro-immigrate human rights group

                In all of these scenarios they would be in violation of the public trust. Lawsuits at the very least, and probably changing the utility company with the local monopoly.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why are you talking about internet service providers? This is an article about the app store. The app store is in no way a common carrier. Neither is any operating system. Neither is any hardware platform.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll bite: for ideologies that are dangerous, they should be illegal. That would require a public discussion, a law, and a court to identify the perpetrators as breaking the law. Then they get depatformed.

        The issue is not tolerating the intolerable, the issue is what is the process for identifying what is intolerable?

        My original comment, was about an open internet, progressive web apps enable a more open internet with less non-judicial gatekeepers.

        • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          And who should be having that discussion? Faux News?

          This fuckwit is not being persecuted by the government. He’s being kicked out of Apple’s private playground.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not saying Apple shouldn’t do that. They’re private organization they’re free to do as they like.

            I brought up progressive web apps to indicate how people can use the internet with less non-judicial gatekeepers

        • spitfire@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I love the concept of crypt.ee, I just don’t have enough usage to justify the cost. I’m trying out voyager now though! Any other recommendations?

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I already listed the two PWAs I use daily.

            I don’t use it personally, but I’m very impressed with Starbucks. They made their app a PWA!

            https://app.starbucks.com/

            Tinder, Spotify, Uber, telegram, etc…

            PWAs are kind of like a silent revolution, they’re sneaking in, they’re coming! But it’s mostly companies that either believe in open software, have in app purchases and want to save the 30% store cut, or are trying to tap into emerging markets that don’t have phones that can support the full fat app so the faster PWA makes sense.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just a clear up a lot of the comments below, I will not respond to any Godwin bait. I will respond to every comment I believe is in good faith.