←back to thread

Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

(github.com)
946 points giuliomagnifico | 6 comments | 01 Jan 21 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
floatingatoll ◴[01 Jan 21 19:58 UTC] No.25606311[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>25606517 #>>25606552 #
jjcon ◴[01 Jan 21 20:17 UTC] No.25606552[source]▶
As someone I guess not in the loop with the latest in outrage culture... what exactly is offensive about the name?
replies(1): >>25607133 #
floatingatoll ◴[01 Jan 21 21:07 UTC] No.25607133[source]▶
My issues with it stem from something unpublished in the late 90s, which is not something 'dismissable' that you can simply set aside using the negation-by-framing of 'outrage culture', so I can't offer any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.
replies(2): >>25607606 #>>25607851 #
1. jjcon ◴[01 Jan 21 22:23 UTC] No.25607851[source]▶
> something unpublished in the late 90s

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

replies(1): >>25609068 #
2. floatingatoll ◴[02 Jan 21 00:51 UTC] No.25609068[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>25610719 #
3. EricE ◴[02 Jan 21 05:45 UTC] No.25610719[source]▶
>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.

replies(1): >>25610824 #
4. floatingatoll ◴[02 Jan 21 06:11 UTC] No.25610824{3}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>25619873 #
5. jjcon ◴[03 Jan 21 06:00 UTC] No.25619873{4}[source]▶
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...

replies(1): >>25619920 #
6. floatingatoll ◴[03 Jan 21 06:11 UTC] No.25619920{5}[source]▶
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.