Legal firm had said Real World Portal encouraged misogyny and there was evidence to suggest it is an illegal pyramid scheme

Apple has withdrawn an app created by Andrew Tate after accusations that it encouraged misogyny and could be an illegal pyramid scheme.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Before the news that Apple had withdrawn the app, Matt Jury, the lawyer representing the women, said: “Andrew and [his brother] Tristan Tate manipulate their significant online following to promote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

  • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    242·
    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.comEnglish
      1018·
      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.worldEnglish
        18·
        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.comEnglish
          514·
          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

          • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.worldEnglish
            121·
            1 year ago

            PWAs are just a shell game for less than savory ideas. I can’t get my app onto a store? That can’t be my fault, it must be the store! I better push that shit myself so that I can make sure everyone gets involved in my pyramid scheme and misogyny. Again, we are into the consequences of free speech, and a PWA will do less to protect you than a store front will. To go back to the bomb analogy, if you built a batch of bombs and took the pallet to Wal-Mart and tried to get them to add you to their vendor list, they’d say “no,” obviously. So, you take the PWA approach and hock them on the street. You are still selling bombs. Just because you took a DIY approach doesn’t suddenly make it OK. Free speech is free speech until it is abused, and then you shut the fuck up and let people live their lives without trying to take advantage of them. The more options we give, the more abuse we will endure. People like Andrew Tate are a stain on society, and I’m totally fine if their right to free speech is taken away. They lost their chance. Give someone else the podium.

            • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
              312·
              1 year ago

              And in your example I would expect the court, following due process, in an open opinion, to put restrictions on that person’s ability to sell, and market their bombs.

              PWA’s have lots of advantages:

              You can do app monetization without giving a cut to an app store which I believe hovers around 30%.

              You can push updates at your own schedule.

              You can develop once and deploy to every platform with a web browser.

              You don’t have to abide by any third parties requirements, but you do have to follow the law of your local jurisdiction. As everyone does

                • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
                  27·
                  1 year ago

                  Are STEMBros not deserving of a conversation? Are they beyond reason? It’s a bold move to use someone’s logic and reason as a impeachment of their character.

                  But that’s beside the point, your latest ad hominem attack, has changed my mind. I agree with you completely we should de-platform everybody you don’t like. Could you send a list over to the ISP? We’ll get on it right now

                  • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    51·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s a bold move to use someone’s logic and reason as a impeachment of their character.

                    So you shouldn’t use somebody’s actions and conduct to judge their character?

                    Could you send a list over to the ISP? We’ll get on it right now

                    Sure, let’s start with [email protected].