Is my son gay? Is my son gay?

We got dragged into this one, so we might as well wrap it up, eh?

SBS TV in Australia just let us know that the "Is my son gay?" app apparently has been removed from the Android Market. If you'll recall, that's the app that asks such not-so-poignant questions as "Is his best friend a girl?", "Has he ever been in a fight" and "Does he like team sports?" It's also the app that sparked a Twitter campaign calling for Google -- and Android Central -- to remove the application from the Android Market. On Sept. 27, AllOut.org (@allout) tweeted the following:

Demand that @Google & @AndroidCentral dump homophobic "Is My Son #Gay?" app NOW, no excuses! #LGBT

Suffice it to say, that was retweeted. A lot. We lost track of how many times over the past week, though it finally trickled off, as these things tend to do. (Though not before we ended up having a short back-and-forth with none other than @BoyGeorge. That's something we never thought we'd see.)

While we certainly appreciate (and believe it or not are quite humbled by) our standing as the biggest and best Android community on the web, we're not Google. We do not have the power to remove (or approve, for that matter) applications for the Android Market. That's Google. We're not Google. We're not Android. We're the leading source for news, reviews, and opinions about Android. And as such, we suggeted more effective ways for letting Google you found the app was offensive, such as flagging it as inappropriate in the Market. We're willing to bet more than a few of you did so.

Anyhoo, back to the "Is my son Gay?" app. Turns out there was a little more to the story than we knew. According to a story by the SBS reporter who contacted us, the app actually was commissioned by a Frenchman who, in addition to being gay himself, is releasing a book by the same name, and that the app was "developed 'with a fun approach.' "

We're not French. And, speaking in the pluralis maiestatis here, we're not gay. So maybe we all missed something in the translation. And we certainly welcome the debate over what kind of apps should be excluded from the Android Market -- or if any should be excluted. It's a great debate, and one that needs to be rekindled from time to time. (And one that we at Android Central don't all agree on.) But, ultimately it's up to Google to approve or remove apps from the Android Market. Not us.

So the app's been removed. It's gone, and in the great scheme of things, we're pretty safe in wrapping up this saga thusly:

It won't be missed.

 
There are 93 comments

xeroslash says:

Nice to know this non-issue is still a non-issue.

Couldn't of said it better.

I love the fact that the whole world listen and follow the 1% of the population Cries and demands all the time. when there are bigger issues going on in the world than some app. #First World Problems.

dcreed says:

Another Frenchman once said, roughly, "I disagree with what you say, sir, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." (Voltaire, by the way.) I think everyone, including developers, should have the right to make asses of themselves in public; censorship is a slippery slope.

I tend to vote with my wallet and just go out of my way to not give money to people whose views are offensive or disagreeable to mine. As such, I'd like to know who developed this so I can avoid their applications in the future.

But you're also right: it won't be missed.

eahinrichsen says:

That quote was written by an Englishwoman named Evelyn Hall in a biography that she wrote about Voltaire.

PingaDulce says:

When is AC going to become an advocate of removing crap apps such as nose candy and any other app involving illegal drugs and such? I guess those apps are cool and keep you busy until you can't some of the real stuff, huh?

1LoudLS says:

sweet bro, thanks.

i probably would have never found that app otherwise. i have been laughing my @ss off all night now. best two dollars i've spent in the market yet.

probably going to end up trading my Bionic for an eight ball before this nights over now :(

"cocain's a hell of a drug" Rick James

PensHockey says:

Just because your offended does not mean your right.

nfkraemer says:

At least it was not titled "is my seaman gay? " or "is my soldier gay"

ecaggiani says:

Sorry, AC, I love you guys, but I do not believe in censorship of any kind, and for you guys to come out in favor for the removal of an app like this rubs me the wrong way. Just report the news and let users vote with their wallets (as dcreed mentioned above).

An open market should not be defined as "mostly open". If it offends people, so be it. They don't need to download the app.

I'm still a fan of AC...I really am. But let's not get into ethical discussions on a news site unless it's done in a forum set up for that reason. You guys have a powerful voice. Use it responsibly and don't preach.

That's my $0.02 for what it's worth. Now back to Android goodness :-)

kradzik18 says:

Like the article said, you're not gay, so why are you offended? The thing I hate about people nowadays is that they try to be so sensitive to others, that they do things like this, and it only makes them seem more elitist and arrogant. If it doesn't offend you, then don't worry about it. If it doesn't pertain to you, leave it alone.

dacp283 says:

+1 People need to quit getting butt hurt with things that don't effect them. This article and the previous one are nothing more than someone feeling as though they MUST involve themselves in some clouded campaign. Who the ______ cares. America is going to hell quick and the lack of spine to fight for things that TRULY matter is why. Americans are cry babies and want to fight meaningless trivial battles as opposed to worthwhile endeavours. I can say that because I am an American HAVE fought for this country and sadly so liberal schmucks can report on this crap. End rant :)

Yep, you guys are pretty much spot on. And when did disagreeing with someone's lifestyle become hate speech? Hate speech is when you say "I disagree with you, and I'm going to cause you harm because of it." This is the typical way liberals push their agenda. Just demonize them and convince all the sheep to follow suit. Somewhere along the way we also confused love with acceptance.

jeeves86 says:

I whole-heartedly disagree. To stand up and speak out against something that doesn't affect you, but for the sake of another isn't arrogant, it's actually very honourable.

Scammers are calling old ladies and tricking them out of their pension cheques. I'm not an old lady, so this shouldn't offend me, right? Well it does. So am I suddenly elitist for thinking that scammers should leave old ladies alone?

That being said, I've never seen the app. If it was designed to help foster understanding between parents and their homosexual kids, then it's a good thing and this is an over-reaction to a silly title. But if it's taking a jab at kids and teens that are probably self-conscious about their sexual orientation, then it deserves to be pulled.

Dhalgren says:

Good news. But there are still dozens of poor apps that need to go either because of functionality or content. Meanwhile, good apps, like ShootMe and Better Alarm Clock Pro, have been kicked out due to what appears to be draconian rules by the Google gods.

kradzik18 says:

ShootMe was taken out of the market on the Developers behalf. Forgot what the reasons were exactly, but don't blame Googs on this one.

brandogg says:

I agree censorship is wrong in all forms (well, almost all forms), but this was seemingly a joke app to begin with. Clearly this app is not supposed to be an actual tool to find out if your son is gay.

fstop says:

We don't need no education, former journo hack.

DougBlossom says:

I think the bigger issue here is that these apps should include an adult rating and a disclaimer that the app is for entertainment purposes only. There are people out there who would take the information in this hate-inspiring app and take it as gospel. Open market. Absolutely. Keeping bogus, hateful, and harmful information away from minors. Priceless.

mrbrianwc says:

Censorship at it's finest. And being led by Android Central's very own Phil Nickinson. Way to go. The app sucked. But the person should have the right to have it in the market even if a few people were offended by it. I guess we can be thankful that the platform lets us install apps from outside the market. So maybe freedom of speech is not dead. BTW Phil your articles gave the app more attention then it otherwise would have gotten. So maybe it was good for the app creator after all. Again way to go.

Producer says:

Exactly. The app, at best, was silly nonsense, a gag app. Not "hate". Unbelievable.

demontooth says:

So dramatic!

Ok, why did people think that Android Central had the power to pull apps? I mean I know you guys a awesome and kind of a big deal but seriuously?!?!?! Its a sad state when just because your site is on the first page of a Google search results mean you are run by Google and therefore the people to attack when you have a issue.

ITT:

Censorship is bad.

Let's censor Phil.

Mike77 says:

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat steak because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain.

We'll talk more about this later, maybe, but I'd like to remind you of what we said in the first post: We'd ignored this app when it was first released. I (and therefore the site) couldn't have cared less about it. I still don't really care about it. It is (and was) a dumb app.

And, again, on the censorship issue: If someone wants to try to convince me that the Android Market is actually a town square and a place where all can (and should) be heard and and is not a place of business owned by a company subject to that company's rules and whims, you know where to find me.

It's when we wrongly got lumped into what became a massive Twitter campaign and petition against it that we had to do a story. I'm sure all of you crying "censorship" would also speak up if someone wrongly accused you of something. At least I hope you would.

Producer says:

Thanks for coming into the comments to clear things up.

But did you really *have* to do a story on it? And, "hate"?

From the first article:

"We're all for an open market. But we could all do without the hate."

Really?? Hate? I'm sorry, but I downloaded the app, and I didn't see any hate.

"Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike, directed against a certain object or class of objects."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate)

Frankly this is some of the stupidest stuff i've read in a long time, but its not surprising anymore seeing as you mention that started on Twitter. Hyberbole taken to its most extreme. The use of "hate" , the false outrage, the hypocrisy, the political correctness that oozes from the text. All over an app that, at best, is silly, and at worse, no different than any of the other fart apps out in the Market. There is no "hate". Just because an army of pseudo-emotional twitterers are in a mis-directed outrage fueled by caffeine, binge drinking and/or watching Fox and/or CNN 24/7 doesn't mean you have to lower yourself to that level, especially if you didn't care.

And now it turns out the guy is gay himself, and made it as something fun (which should have been seen by anyone with common sense).

I'm all for "flagging" hateful, racist, illegal or bigoted content - but only when its REALLY hateful, illegal, or bigoted, not when it violates my sensitivity so that I rewrite definitions to fit in to my worldview.

Honestly Phil, between this one and the "animal abuse" one, I honestly wouldn't bother reacting on AC on stuff like this. No matter how "big" it gets. A possible exception made to the things that are *REALLY* hateful (NOT when it violates someones political or social view), and even then I wouldn't bother bringing attention to it. In reality, a lot of the truly illegal or racist or hateful apps are probably exterminated from the Market before most people have a chance to even see it.

But if it was "REALLY hateful, illegal, or bigoted," like you say, you'd want someone to get involved, right? :)

Mike77 says:

No... If you don't like it don't download it, simple as that. Don't like that show on TV change the channel.

Producer says:

+1

Producer says:

Keep going:

"...and even then I wouldn't bother bringing attention to it."

I personally wouldn't care, even if it was "REALLY hateful, illegal or bigoted", even more so if its just empty rhetoric. Others might, which is why I added the exception, and in the case of where it straddles the line between legal and illegal activity, it should be flagged. However hate is something thats NOT open to interpretation, or something that differs based on the time of day or their political ideology.

I can point you to some real hate, real hardcore "white/black power" sites, Islamist websites, etc, each 1000x more violent, and disturbed than this "outrage" app. Are you going to turn them in to the FBI and spend the rest of the day upset?

Probably not. I just dont see why the same approach can be had on the Android Market (or any Market), regardless of what a bunch of ass holes on Twitter get riled up about.

1LoudLS says:

so first you start talking about freedom to say whatever(or have the ability do download any apps)you want.

but then you start talking about an article that Phill wrote about.

so which is it, everything should be free (not talking about the cost of purchase)and you can download what apps you want, or you get to tell Phil what he can and can not write about, cause last i checked you cant have both.

if you dont like his article, then "change the channel"

lmlloyd says:

I asked someone else this, but I would like to ask you too. Can you name me one example of a form of mass communication that doesn't meet your definition of "a place of business owned by a company subject to that company's rules and whims?"

As I read this particular argument, the logical conclusion is that freedom of speech does not cover mass communication, or even modern commercial communication infrastructure, as they are all businesses, operated for profit, and under the terms of service of the owner or licensee of the infrastructure/bandwidth/spectrum. I do not see what about your definition keeps your ISP from blocking email on subjects or to people they don't like. I don't see what about your definition precludes the phone company from blocking you from calling anyone they don't think you should be talking to. I don't see why it wouldn't allow your hosting company to remove articles that they found unappealing, for whatever reason.

Now, I would like to assume that you do not actually mean to argue that free speech does not apply to any form of mass or modern communication, but that would seem to be the only rational conclusion to draw from how you have setup your definition. Please explain to me how the Android Market, is somehow different than any other form of mass communication in regards to being a place of business?

cirrob says:

Even if the app was designed to offend it shouldn't have been removed. The world needs a big dose of "get over it!" Ac big fail for even mentioning this.

Ahhhh. The old "head in the sand strategy," eh?

cirrob says:

Explain

John Hardin says:

This app shouldn't have been taken off. People in this country have been given the right to put out almost any information they please, offensive or not. It seems to me that the real issue here is not that it's offensive, it's who it's offending. Kinda like how you're allowed to say racist white jokes if you're black, but you can't make racist black jokes if you're white. It's hypocrisy.

1LoudLS says:

interesting fact:

a group of klan members can get together and preach real hatred

a group of hardcore religious fundamentalist can have a website to spread real hate

but a gay guy, can't have an app joking about gays on the market with out people having petitioning to have it removed.

BdawgTrap says:

The great part about android is that we are given options and are treated and expected to act as adults. I do not like ios treating people like children and telling them what they can and can't do, that is why I went to android. Let me tell you all something you may have forgot - just because something is there, does not mean you are forced to use / view / or think about it. Let's all be adults and use our own judgement to choose what we want to participate in, and let's not limit others from the same choices. Wether it be a gay app, dog fights, or anything else that is not illegal, let's all make our own adult decisions

Appelflap says:

What is legal or not is not determined by laws of nature but by discussion and interpretation. In that sense it is always interesting to hear opinions.

BdawgTrap says:

What is legal or not is decided by the government officials that are over such things. But yes, it is always interesting to hear opinions.

mhans311 says:

Too bad not everyone who owns an android device is an adult. Your logic is flawed. Google can do whatever they want with their market.

BdawgTrap says:

No not everyone is. But 99% are either adults or are bought by adults for a juvenile. Also there is content filtering in the market settings that you can set. People need to be able to use their own common sense, and seeing as how there is not pornographic material, sex trafficking, illegal material sells, or other such illegal and disgusting material in the app, i do not see the reason behind the article.

Appelflap says:

There's an app in the market called "are you gay" lol Really, it is a slippery slope. It would be more fruitful to discuss Google's policy. Of course there are apps that shouldn't be on the market. The interesting question is what is the limit. As such an interesting topic.

It really is. I wish we knew what the trigger was before Google gets involved. Is there a panel of people who decide to remove an app? A metric? It's fascinating stuff. Look at how big a deal it's been for iOS developers. Maybe Google's balanced looser restrictions with a less transparent mechanism and appeals process for removal?

Appelflap says:

Very difficult to tell. Google deals with this in a very interesting way. They allow the developer to publish anything, but if you somehow cross the border they just ban an app without telling a reason. Interesting strategy, because that way they enforce the developer to think about what he's doing and if what he's doing complies with the rules. I like that. Its better than the Apple or Microsoft strategy because they let the developers think for themselves . "Every" developer knows that there are limits ... it enforces a kind of autonomy. Very interesting model. The more because developers are never told why they or one of their apps is banned.

But somehow "they" are open for discussions that are triggered in the community and in some very rare cases they change their decision.

The world will never become a Walden Two, the way Skinner pictured it, but the lack of negative reinforcement and the focus on positive reinforcement in this model is certainly noteworthy.

mrbrianwc says:

That would make a very interesting article.

Call for a ban on Gay Pride Parades and an outcry of Free Speech comes out. Put an app out on the free market against their ways and everyone cries foul. WTF? Free Speech is both ways no matter what you feel about it.

2late2die says:

I didn't really follow this story much but was the app really offensive and bigoted? Or was it just a silly app that tried to approach the topic with humour and just wasn't funny enough so people decided to take offence?

(Because, and again didn't follow the story, I got the impression that most people only ever heard the app's name yet for some reason decided that that in itself is already offensive.)

C4jmj says:

Phil, you have bought into all the political correctness that has made our society ill. I suppose you believe anyone who follows Christ and speaks out against homosexuality is bigotted. Well any true Christian has a duty to speak out when they see something wrong, Charity in truth is required of us. If someone legitimately made an app to help parents spare their children of such things then God Bless the dev who comes up with it.

DougBlossom says:

Spare their children!!! Gross.

John Hardin says:

I miss it already! It sounds hilarious!

a.leah86 says:

C4jmj's comment is the exact reason this app, even if it was meant to be humorous, is unsettling. Without it being marked as a humor app it was hard to tell if it was supposed to be funny.

Read up on assaults to homosexual individuals or gay "rehabilitation" clinics or kids who have lost theirs homes and families because they are gay. Then tell me that this app didn't have room for gross misinterpretation by some on the Android platform.

John Hardin says:

I don't agree that someone should lose their family over something like that. But since you brought up the rehab thing, let's look at this in a purely scientific view. I know what an attractive female looks like. I also know what an attractive male looks like. If someone has a beer gut, male or female, I'll find it unattractive and disgusting. But if someone who has taken exceptional care of their body walks by, I'll notice, male or female. I meet very few who disagree with this, therefore the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual isn't what they find attractive, but who they choose to... well you know. Now I don't want to state the obvious, but it looks like I have to: that makes homosexuality a choice. Now that doesn't mean that I want to take away their right to choose or tell them how to live their life (I was even against DADT), but I'm not going to give them an easy way out by telling them they were "born that way". It's time for them to grow up, take responsibly, and stop demanding that others be silenced just because the gay community doesn't like what they say. Free speech goes for everyone, not just them.

eahinrichsen says:

Recognizing attractiveness does not equal being attracted. Sexual attraction is a physical and chemical response that has absolutely nothing to do with choice. At all.

folarino says:

I don't post a lot but the combined stupidity and incredulity of your post compelled me.

I had a long rebuttal, but then I realized, for a post this dumb, it has to be trolling. It can't possibly be serious.

The sad part is there are tons of people with this convenience store logic, thinking they have the vagaries of human sexuality figured out.

If you were serious, do yourself a favor and educate yourself.

tronthedon says:

So you need a huge "THIS IS A JOKE!" sign to tell you what you could decide on for yourself? -_-

Let me guess. You also need a laughing soundtrack in the background of your sitcoms when they make a joke?

John Hardin says:

This app shouldn't have been taken off. People in this country have the right to put out almost any information they please, offensive or not. The real reason they wanted it off is not that it's offensive, it's who it's offending. Kinda like how you're allowed to say racist white jokes if you're black, but you can't make racist black jokes if you're white. It's hypocrisy.

mhans311 says:

Wrongo. There is no "right" for people to put whatever they want into something that somebody else owns. Google has control over their market. No one else has a "right" to anything in the market.

cbhouston says:

While I understand the comparison to hypocrisy, let's not overlook HISTORY. African Americans were subject to unimaginable hatred and discrimination. The entire race. So I can understand a continued sensitivity to "racist black jokes" coming from a white person. Some people who haven't been around long enough to know about the historical oppression don't really appreciate HISTORY.

Likewise, the entire gay community has been HISTORICALLY subject to hatred and discrimination.

Sensitivities may sometimes go overboard for the sake of political correctness, but let's not simply dismiss HISTORY just because our society has made strides to reduce discrimination.

balthuszar says:

censorship is a slippery slope, you cannot censor this app, or call for it to be censored with out calling for every single app that may or may not offend someone to be censored...let the people choose, money talks, no one buys this app, or downloads it it'll eventually go away...but to call for google to pull it is ludicrous...do i find it funny? no...do i find it offencive? slightly...do i want it pulled from the market, absolutely not...android is supposed to be open, if we start censoring, or calling for an app to be pulled, we may as well go join the apple crowd...as a gay man, my fellow homosexuals really torque me sometimes...if this app was about blacks, indians, middle easterners, french, canadians, or any other minority(in this country)they wouldnt say anything...yet because it's about them they are all up in arms about it

Phoenix Rev says:

Your charge of censorship would apply if the Android Market was controlled by the government. But it isn't. A private business has no obligation to provide an open forum to anyone.

Do you think you have the right to post anything you want at any time on any website or forum? By all means, go to some cooking website and post some screed about how you hate a particular minority and see how fast your comment is deleted, if it is published at all.

Then, go to your local courthouse and tell the judge that the owner of that privately-owned site must be forced to publish your comment. You would be laughed out of the courthouse.

The same holds true for the Android Market. They can pull any app they wish for any reason AT ALL. Likewise, they could host nothing but anti-gay, anti-minority, pro-KKK, pro-Nazi apps if they wished and all you can do is decide not to patronize the market.

I never ceased to be amazed at how basic civics seems to be near extinction in the U.S.

mhans311 says:

Thank you! Some people need to look up the meaning of words before they start throwing them around willy nilly. Censorship is not an issue here at all.

lmlloyd says:

The problem with your little Libertarian-influenced civics lesson, is name me one form of mass, or even modern, communication in the that isn't a private business?

Books? Nope.
Newspapers? Nope.
Telephone? Nope.
Radio? Nope.
TV? Nope.
Internet? Nope.
App markets? Nope.

So, basically, by your logic, your right to free speech, in the modern world, consists of the right to stand on the sidewalk calmly explaining your point of view to anyone who will willingly stop and listen (because yelling it or stopping people to get them to listen would be creating a public disturbance, which is illegal), or printing up fliers, and handing them out(because posting them anywhere would of course be at the discretion of the owner of the property where you wanted to post it).

Or, put another way, you have no *right* to access any communications technology developed in the past 200 years. Using any form of communication younger than 200 years, is simply a privilege, granted at the sole discretion of the companies who built or bought time on the underlying infrastructure.

At least that would seem to me to be the logical extension of your "civics lesson." Have to say, not how either I, nor Supreme Courts of the past have interpreted freedom of speech, though you never know with this new court.

mhans311 says:

True, many forms of communication are controlled by private companies. And those companies are free to publish or not publish whatever they want. You think newspapers publish everything they hear about? Nope. There are movie theaters that will not show particular movies because of the feelings of the owners. It is well within Google's rights to add or remove anything they want from the market. If you want your demeaning and vulgar apps, go elsewhere to get them and put them on your phone. So if you want to publish your point of view, start your own newspaper or your own website. Or create your own mobile OS with your own app market and publish whatever apps you want. Or you can take many of your own suggestions and pass out fliers and talk to people in town squares.

lmlloyd says:

I think that saying "many" is an understatement. As I said, I cannot think of a single communication technology of the past 200 years that is not now privately controlled by corporate interests. If it is your position that as a result, that means that the First Amendment doesn't apply, then that is a fair argument, but let's be clear and honest about what you are really saying. You are not just saying "if you want to say something offensive, then start your own app store," you are saying that anyone who has a societaly unacceptable view, needs to not just start their own app store, but develop their own telecommunications infrastructure, invent their own Internet, create their own social network, and create their own phones as well, because they have no right to use any of those technologies (as they are privately owned), and can only use them as long as the people who own them approve of what they are saying.

You are, in effect, saying that anyone who's views are in conflict with approved code of ethics as spelled out by private industry, has no right to participate in the 21st century. They are free to their views, but are only actually entitled by law to live an 18th century existence, as long as they insist on saying what is unacceptable. It is easy to say that the local newspaper has no obligation to print what they say, but let's follow it all the way. You are also saying that Twitter, Skype, Facebook, Google, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner and so forth, have no legal obligation to display their comments, send their emails, connect their IM client, provide them with Internet, let them make phone calls, or allow them to in any way communicate with the world beyond their speaking range.

You are saying that a person can be completely silenced, and cut off from any form of modern communication, at the whim of the companies involved. If a large group of people chose a single random word to say was offensive, and started a massive social networking and letter writing campaign to ban the use of the word, you are saying that you would be just fine with companies summarily disconnecting from all modern communication, anyone caught using that word, even if the word was "lint" or "daffodil."

That is an arguable position, but I think it is important to highlight how radical it is, rather than try and underplay it as some simplistic 'their stores, their rules' flip comment. Especially when you are talking about something like any modern communications medium, which was not developed entirely by private industry, but also through the use of public funds. It is fine to take some Libertarian position that property rights trump all other rights, but I think it is vital that you are honestly clear about the fact that you mean ALL other rights.

mhans311 says:

Yep. That's what I'm saying. They could stop services to people whenever they want. But the thing is, they won't. They won't make any money if they don't provide services. I guess to you the fact that Google removed this app from the market means that all other communication services are going to cut everyone off. Better start stocking up on firewood for those smoke signals.

lmlloyd says:

No, what it means to me is that you are fine with something like, say, a provider like AT&T (if the technology was available), making it impossible to criticize their service, from on their service. You are fine with a service provider blocking ports and only allowing you to use their approved apps. You are fine with the government completely circumventing the Bill of Rights, by 'asking' providers to 'voluntarily' remove content the government finds objectionable. In fact, you would seem to be fine with a complete abrogation of personal rights, in favor of corporate feudalism, even when the resources the corporations are leasing back to us, were developed with public funding (telecommunications/Internet infrastructure), or exist in the public trust (radio spectrum). Also, I will point out, that people concerned with absolute freedom, and wanting unrestricted access to modern technology, without being at the whims of corporate interests, DID, in fact, develop their own OS, which happens to be at the very core of Android. But I guess once Google benefits from that core innovation and work by individuals, those people's wishes are no longer relevant, it is all about what Google wants then, right?

balthuszar says:

as i said, if you want to be "protected" from apps you find offensive, join up with apple...all i ever hear about is android is open...completely...if you dont like the app, no one is forcing you to download it...as someone else said, its like watching tv, no one forces you to watch any given tv show, you have power over what you watch and what you dont watch, either walk to the tv and change the channel, or change the remote, which ever...but dont call for the show to get cancelled, and get upset because the network it was on allows it...what if someone was a dunce and was offended by all the calculator apps in the market...would you be ok with them calling for calculator apps to be pulled?

Not to be confused with the "Forty Year Old Virgin" game app: "I Know You're Gay Because . . ."

mhans311 says:

For all of you talking about censorship, ????? I don't get it. Google can remove or add whatever they want to their market. Go side-load all your sleazy apps if you want them.

Oh and don't go blaming AC for getting involved, they were dragged into it with that tweet calling for them to remove the app. They told people what they could do to protest the app if they wanted to. Don't think it was AC that was "censoring" the market. That Google's choice. Besides, who wants to support these stale stereotypes anyway?

wtphoto says:

Ok first, I don't give 2 rats behinds about whether a person is gay or not. Second, do I think the app should have been removed? No! I think the market should not be influenced by a "mob mentality" campaign by a bunch of people that got their precious little feelings hurt. However google has the right to make that decision based on what they feel is best for their business (and trust me that's what it comes down to)

Finally AC was forced to make some kind of statement because they where also a subject to the campaign and not making such a statement would have been severely irresponsible when it comes to the business of running the site. I don't agree with some of the things that where said in the original article, and I think Phil may have let his personal feelings and opinions bleed through a little but guess what, when we look at a review of a new phone, those are his opinions and feelings as well. Giving his opinion is what he gets paid to do. So to all the people here crying into one hand about not having censorship and then into the other reading Phil the riot act because he gave his opinion, stop being hypocritical and realize that there are always going to be things that we agree with and things we don't, but such is the nature of life.

dacp283 says:

Note to self, don't read AC for the credible news. I'll read it for phone specs and releases. :)

moosc says:

Welcome to Obama land. The right to use common sense is gone. We are a socialist country just like Cuba. We have forgotten how to think for ourselves and need to be led around like a dog.

mhans311 says:

A company deciding they don't want a certain app in their market has turned us into Cuba? Go to Cuba and take a look around.

batsai#IM says:

@moosc The power of business owners to decide what to sell in their market is "socialist"??!? What are you smoking? And what does the President have to do with the removal of this app? "Common sense" as you put it would've shown Google that this app was upsetting a lot of people, and their "common sense" made them decide to remove it. End of story! It's their market and they have the right to choose what to sell in it. That's the American way. Socialist? That's the dumbest comment I've yet seen on this site.

Phil's coverage had a little bit of commentary, but isn't that what we read this site for? AC's news coverage is top notch and that's why I continue to return to this site.

AC hypocrites.

So many of the Android bloggers repeat how important and ideal and desirable it is for android to be an open platform with full control over their phones by the users, etc. They loudly proclaim the libertarian mantra as it relates to android phones.

Yet when they're offended by non politically incorrect apps they instead turn fascist and demand removal of an app that doesn't meet their vision for what is acceptable or not.

Pathetic hypocrites. No principles.

Keep your morality and political campaigns to yourself and report news on android and tips on using our amazing phones. Otherwise you sound like an ignorant entertainers supporting the idiots in NYC right now who would block capitalism from innovating phones like android in the 1st place under their extremism.

mhans311 says:

Since when is treating all people with respect called a political campaign? Google's decision to take an app out of their market does not mean Android isn't an open platform. The two have nothing to do with each other. "Open" means open source code. And either way, if you want your offensive apps, go ahead and side load them from the internet somewhere. You can do that with these open android phones.

This has nothing to do about being politically correct. It has everything to do with perpetuating a stereotype. Let me guess you are male, white, age 20-35, straight, and are what is considered a "normal america". What they hell would you know about being in a minority. Until you walk in someone else's shoes do the world a favor and STFU. Tell me if your significant other died, and the family swooped in and said the hell with the will, we are going to do what we want and you don't matter because you are one of "those" people. I'm pretty damn sure you wouldn't be so concerned about others rights. This kind of thing happens every day in the US because basic rights are denied to people who are homosexual. Things like medical insurance. Gay? Then tough crap.

you want to talk principles. What would have happened if the civil rights movement had said oops....yah principles folks....lets all go home and eat our watermelon...oh wait...that is a derogatory comment...but I guess that is OK because its principles...right?

Pandu108h says:

Who else's shoes have you walked in, to say STFU and then launch into such a rant?

dacp283 says:

It's not google's decision that's the problem it's how it came to be. The poor gays or poor homeless or poor illegal immigrants campaigns that Americans preach is the problem. Yet most of them don't have the spine to fight real issues like terrorism or a sad corrupt and inept government.

Oh another one of those, if its not my issue who gives a shit. Love people like you, you folks are the epitome of what is wrong with this world. You also probably subscribe to the notion of NIMBY too. Selfish, self centered, rude, and arrogant. You sure you aren't from the US?

balthuszar says:

the problem is, too many people have the NIMBY attitude...as longa s its not offensive to them, they dont care...i will never call for an app to be pulled, because honestly, if i dont like it, i have the brains to not download it...

"developed 'with a fun approach."

Here's the deal. I don't know what tolerance levels are of gays in gay Paree, however this shit is coming to a head in the US. This app is like waving around a match after sprinkler heads full of gasoline just went off. just like waving around a match you can make this aapp, but the results are pretty obvious.

balthuszar says:

as i've said before...if you want protected from offensive apps...join apple, crawl into a cave and stay there...

spokenwordd says:

I cannot say strongly enough how much I hate these politically correct, ban the app, outrage/"how could they" posts in Android Central. Nothing against Phil or Android Central in particular but really?

This app was in poor taste, agreed. But swinging the ban hammer is best done in the form of not buying it. If we judge the efficacy of ideas by who is offended by the said idea then there would be few that are "vetted" as ok. Since when does being offensive constitute a ban hammer? If that is the case then I'm offended by political correctness, should it be banned if we get enough signatures?

Being a black American has taught me to be cautioned about being "offended" to this level. Case in point, an associate of mine was discussing a famous black actress with me. He made the statement that she was pretty "for a black woman". He is white,does this make him a racist? I say no... it makes him a white male that does not find black women particularly attractive. Do I care? Not in the least, I find some of the same features he does not care for to be more beautiful then the ones he prefers in women. Who cares??

We all have preferences, divergent opinions and diametrically opposed systems of belief at some level. Should we ban the ones we deem offensive? We would be the weaker for it. There will always be bad ideals and nut jobs who propogate them. I personally think it more noble not to silence them. Lest we all be found with severed tongues, silenced in turn by the opposed and offended.

The use of the "N word" is deemed offensive to many. I agree. But it is only offensive when it is used by whites it seems. I will not be signing any petitions to ban it, or supporting any laws to make it illegal. I have chosen to mentally transcend the offence.

Better to practice the skill of living in a world that is not homogenous.

aaCharley says:

So the app was created by some homosexual French author to help identify targets?

Or was the purpose to identify frothing mouth breathers responding on blogs as potential book purchasers?

Pandu108h says:

I just lost some respect for Google, and for AC. Is this now a political site trying to dictate personal morals? F- off, android central.

jeeves86 says:

Wow, it's amazing how many people get offended because AC was trying to defend themselves. They were dragged into this not through their own volition but through another party. It'd be ignorant and short-sighted of the site NOT to comment on it.

All the gay-bashers really come out in these kinds of posts, too. There's a difference between speaking out against censorship. Oh don't worry, you don't have to identify yourselves - it shows.

aaCharley says:

In what way was AC drawn into anything? Someone created and offered an app in the google Market. That required the notice from AC because . . . . ?

Governor Christie announced that he will not run for President.
European banks are collapsing.
There is a march to shut down Wall Street.
A new medical finding is that oral sex can cause increased throat cancer in men.
Were there no interesting Twitter comments on those events. How ever did AC avoid being drawn in and posting an editorial on those twits?

1LoudLS says:

didn't the Germans try to have somethings "removed" a while ago?

ernestmac13 says:

People who declare this topic a non-issue or discount the effects of apps like this, haven't truly experienced the effects of racism, sexism, or any other form of discrimination. For many gay you, life can be a living hell. Some live in extremely religiously conservative homes, where believe it or not a parent would use such an app to try & find out if Johny is Gay. Sadly, even if Johny is strait, the parent(s) in question might use such a program to convince themselves he is, & then badger their kid & make his life a living hell. If parents were to use such a program & confront their kid, & the kid did come out, there could be dire consequences. Even in this day & age, families tell their gay kids as young as 12 & younger, that they are dead to them, & they abandon them. The fact 40% of all homeless youth are queer youth who have either been rejected by family or who no longer feel safe at home, shows this is a real possibility. The fact churches hold pray the gay away groups, have been caught doing gay exorcisms, & other such nonecence, shows how far the hateful-faithful will go. Some of our conservative religious & political leaders have called for denying gays, none Christians, & Atheists, citizenship, for deporting them, & even for stoning them & otherwise killing them. This is why there is so much outrage over this seemingly innocent app.

ernestmac13 says:

People are committing the fallacy of the slipper slope all over the place here. They removed an app, because they saw possible negative consequences to people's lives due to the app. Everyone then decides removing this app will somehow bring android market & life as we know it to its knees. I mean really now, if some sick mf makes an app concerning child porn, abusing children, etc, would we sit by and say its OK, & just don't buy it if you don't like it? No, we would demand such sickness be removed from the market. There has to be a certain standard of ethics in any market, social media, etc, or it will degrade into chaos. Now Apple might be a bot more restrictive than necessary & Android Market a bit more unrestrictive, but that's where the voices of the users come in. When Apple got rid of some adult content programs but not others, some people cried fowl, & some of the previously deleted apps were back up on the Apple Store. Likewise, people on the sites linked to buying google/android apps have deleted apps users have found to be offensive. If folks bother to notice, these apps are not the apps with sexual content, or even the apps for finding one night stands, they are however the apps that could actually negatively impact people's lives, especially that of young folks. So, can we stop with the slippery slopes, just because one thing happens, doesn't necessarily mean that, other highly unlikely things will result.