Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

I couldn’t have guessed the purpose of the app from this name, and now that I know what it does, I would specifically avoid giving money to it due the name alone.

I’m glad someone made an alternative to Caffeine.app but “they’re both drugs” doesn’t weaken my personal objection to the choice of name. I am glad that Apple is compelling the name to be changed, and I hope the author complies. This is where “universal freedom” clashes directly with “common sense for a department store” for me, and while I understand others aren’t on my side, I prefer department stores to flea markets.

Why should your "personal objection" be a reason for someone else to change? You do you and choose an app based on naming if you want, but don't go pushing your puritan views on everyone else.

As someone I guess not in the loop with the latest in outrage culture... what exactly is offensive about the name?

My issues with it stem from something unpublished in the late 90s, which is not something 'dismissable' that you can simply set aside using the negation-by-framing of 'outrage culture', so I can't offer any reply to your question. Please accept my apologies for how far off the mark my reasons are from your assumptions; perhaps another time we'll be better aligned.

My personal objection is shared by others, unpalatable as that may be to some. Thankfully, my celebration of this outcome is wholly irrelevant to Apple's decision-making process, as I neither work for Apple, influence Apple, nor participate in any app store review processes on behalf of Apple, or any other either. So you may take comfort that had I exerted any effort to push my view — which I haven't — it would have meant just as much to the outcome as our discussion here in this thread: Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Demeaning me with the phrase "pushing your puritan views" is is tasteless and inappropriate, and makes incorrect assumptions not only about the root of my objection but also about the belief systems surrounding it. You are wrong about both.

On the contrary, intentionally obtuse and unsubstantive references to some unpublished something-or-other, and unspecified personal objections which are claimed to be 'common sense', are pretty vapid and dismissable.

> something unpublished in the late 90s

Why should anyone care about this? I’m still confused.

Noted, thanks!

I'm not here to help you determine whether you should care or not. That's entirely up to you. For some unknown reason you seem to care, and I certainly can't figure out why from the replies so far.

As best as I can guess from the evidence available, you're looking for some vector to "No, you're wrong!" disprove some aspect of my personal view of this. This will, of course, go nowhere. I didn't submit my personal view as some sort of entry in a debate, and I'm making no effort to persuade anyone to my view.

If you can't find a way to derive value or relevance from my viewpoint, other than trying to disprove it or debate it, then you'll just have to move on. I'm not going to try to pressure you, persuade you, influence you, argue with you, or otherwise make any effort to interfere with your freedoms of thought and choice. That would be inappropriate for an unsubstantiated personal view such as the one I have provided.

>I'm not here to help you determine whether you should care or not.

Other than attention seeking what was the point of your original post? It certainly wasn't for dialog since you can't have a dialog unless you are willing to put all the points of discussion on the table.

People are rightly puzzled by your posting because this site is about dialog - not one direction orations. That you are attempting to act "above the fray" is even more amazing.

I can think of several interesting and relevant dialogues that could occur, but I also predicted that a viewpoint on this topic not couched in SSC-compatible rationality terms would be rejected and attacked by other HN commenters. Having confirmed that prediction, I’m content not to share any further details about my biasing experiences so as not to offend further, and avoid being emotionally vulnerable to y’all in the process. Or, restated, I was able to verify that the non-logical nature of my experiences and viewpoint remains intolerable within HN’s limits as a forum. I will continue to keep this in mind going forward as I have previously but it’s necessary to recheck assumptions now and then and this served that purpose acceptably.

I think it’s pretty clear that what was being discussed was a freedom of expression issue (as a value not a law). Doesn’t matter now though cause Apple backed down and the dev noted this in his response: “We may not all agree, but I am happy we all still have the freedom to express ourselves today”

I think that sums things up well

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/02/amphetamine-app-store-r...

I’m sad to see this outcome, but it’s kind of you to ensure that I see it again for a fourth time today. Thanks and be well.