One could say that about any company (because "fiduciary duty", amirite?).
"Don't let Toyota's 'reliable car at a reasonable price' marketing fool you, they're all about money." Yeah, but does that preclude them from selling me an actually reliable car at a reasonable price?
But when a company makes moral arguments ("We're better than others because of X") the bar goes up.
If Toyota says that we're the car company that cares about you, we want to keep you safe from the bad actors, and trust us on making right choices for you - and when you discover Toyota has been secretly building out an ad network, in bed with Chinese government, you have to call them out. And that's what Apple is doing.
Privacy is a human right, except in China where they are happy to go along with what the government wants. Google atleast had the balls to pack up and leave the country.
Apple fired its Chief Diversity Officer when she said that white men with blue eyes can also count towards a diverse workforce. A purely non-monetary ideological capitulation.
I think it was a perfectly reasonable statement. But because it does not align with a recent radical redefinition of diversity, she was fired. Apple certainly wasn’t at risk of losing money over keeping her in that role.
I date men and don't think going against TOS or laws is okay even in the name of 'safety'. This app doesn't bother me and frankly I think more apps like this should be allowed, but it is hypocritical to think this should be allowed to exist and many others not.
Can't say I expected it, but surely you can see the poetic justice. A response in kind. It's nothing like the analogy you're dragging in -- SA for dressing a certain way. Rather, it's doxing for doxing. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Apple had no issue mass censoring Parlor and others, how is an app like this able to reach #1 under all?