←back to thread

Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

(github.com)
946 points giuliomagnifico | 5 comments | 01 Jan 21 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.012s | source
Show context
crazygringo ◴[01 Jan 21 20:23 UTC] No.25606619[source]▶
I mean, on this point I'm actually inclined to think Apple's general policy is reasonable, even if it sucks that Apple is only now adding or enforcing this rule.

It doesn't want apps that jokingly call themselves "Crack Cocaine", "Crystal Meth", or "Mango Vape". It doesn't have anything to do with them actually promoting drug use, but it helps normalize illegal drug use in a way, while Apple wants to keep a "family friendly" approach to its App Store.

Honestly, if I were the creator I'd just rebrand it.

I remember coming across the app years ago, it wasn't obvious from the name what it did, and when I finally understood it, it just seemed like the creator was trying a little too hard to be "edgy". And if you want the widest possible usage/distribution of your app, "edgy" is usually not the way to go.

replies(4): >>25606890 #>>25607458 #>>25607717 #>>25611820 #
nsajko ◴[01 Jan 21 22:07 UTC] No.25607717[source]▶
No. Amphetamine is the name of a chemical with both legal medicinal and illegal applications. I might agree with you if the app's name was "Meth" or some other slang term for a stimulant drug associated with illegal use.
replies(2): >>25607840 #>>25610128 #
crazygringo ◴[02 Jan 21 03:32 UTC] No.25610128[source]▶
The usage here (stay awake with amphetamines) clearly refers to the recreational illegal application of using it to stay up.

Absolutely amphetamines have prescription medicinal applications including for chronic fatigue. Just like cocaine has applications such as a topical anaesthetic.

But it's completely disingenous to suggest that the app is using the name "Amphetamine" as if it were under the context of a doctor's prescription. It's obviously in the recreational context of healthy people staying awake. And exactly the same as with "cocaine", when most people hear "amphetamines" they think of illegal drugs, not prescription ones.

replies(1): >>25610155 #
nsajko ◴[02 Jan 21 03:37 UTC] No.25610155[source]▶
Amphetamine is used for treating narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcolepsy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic_hypersomnia

replies(1): >>25610366 #
crazygringo ◴[02 Jan 21 04:24 UTC] No.25610366[source]▶
Of course. I just used chronic fatigue as one example, those are others.

Regardless, my point stands: when the average person thinks of using amphetamines to stay awake, they're thinking primarily of the illegal context, not the prescription one.

replies(1): >>25611862 #
1. rendall ◴[02 Jan 21 10:41 UTC] No.25611862[source]▶
> "when the average person thinks of using amphetamines to stay awake, they're thinking primarily of the illegal context, not the prescription one."

Be careful when claiming knowledge of what "everybody" or "the average person" is thinking. You expose your own bias. It can come off as a weird self-own, as if you're saying that you use it that way so you can't conceive of innocent uses

replies(1): >>25613446 #
2. crazygringo ◴[02 Jan 21 15:33 UTC] No.25613446[source]▶
I already am careful and I'm not exposing any bias, but thanks for checking.

It comes across as a weird self-own that you assume I can't conceive of anything else. Especially since I already mentioned the medical uses multiple times. It's simply which usage/meaning is more common, not that the other doesn't exist. It's about frequency, not bias.

replies(1): >>25617131 #
3. rendall ◴[02 Jan 21 22:22 UTC] No.25617131[source]▶
No need to get prickly. But no need to explain again either. It's more common to you and your social circle, apparently, but [citation needed] for "the average" person.

You're exposing a lot more about yourself and your lifestyle than you realize, evidently

replies(1): >>25619505 #
4. crazygringo ◴[03 Jan 21 04:39 UTC] No.25619505{3}[source]▶
Oh I'm not prickly, ha -- where ever did you get that idea? I'm touched by your concern for me -- it's quite sweet -- but it's really not necessary. And I'm not at all concerned about "exposing" my lifestyle, what a hoot!

Do you have a "citation" for the average person? If not, then I really don't know what you're arguing about.

replies(1): >>25619881 #
5. nsajko ◴[03 Jan 21 06:02 UTC] No.25619881{4}[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)