> They kind of have a point
They don't (the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't), and it's quite likely that it's a reviewer mistake that will be overturned once the stink on social media gets big enough to reach the right person.
They don't (the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't), and it's quite likely that it's a reviewer mistake that will be overturned once the stink on social media gets big enough to reach the right person.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_(drink)
https://m.riverfronttimes.com/foodblog/2010/01/20/the-beerte...
You don't think it could reinforce the idea that Amphetamines could be a useful tool to preserve wakefulness?
I don't think we as a society should be this sensitive/prone to suggestion. If anything, I believe the censorship promotes the idea that people have no responsibility to make their own choices, and we must build to the lowest common denominator.
Note, I'm not really making a judgement about whether Apple should be allowed to do this - I think that is harder question.
The fact remains that in most places amphetamines are an illegal drug when acquired without a prescription.
I think he should just rebrand. A name change is not a big deal, given the app has low name recognition in the first place. News of the rebrand will be the first Google result for people who are unaware of it.
Apple holds all the cards here. There is little to be gained if he wins, and if he loses he will have to rebrand anyway after much wasted effort.
Why try to hide a fact?
It certainly references it. Definitions are fuzzy, and very much in the eye of the beholder.