Apple has withdrawn an app created by Andrew Tate after accusations that it encouraged misogyny and could be an illegal pyramid scheme.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Before the news that Apple had withdrawn the app, Matt Jury, the lawyer representing the women, said: “Andrew and [his brother] Tristan Tate manipulate their significant online following to promote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
    17
    arrow-down
    67
    ·
    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.

    • 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
        9
        ·
        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
              4
              ·
              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
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        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
          8
          ·
          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
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            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
          2
          ·
          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
            5
            ·
            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
      14
      ·
      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.