It seems like this discussion should be raised up a level. We can debate the merits of the app itself, but then that leads to opposing, valid arguments. The app's creator can assert the numerous beneficial uses of the app. Detractors can note the potential for misuse/abuse. Neither is necessarily a winning argument in an objective sense. And thus, we need some arbiter. In this case, that arbiter is Apple, who in this case, must anger some subset of the people on this thread.

So really, the debate is "who is a valid arbiter?" On what basis should the authority to deny access to a platform/market be granted or revoked? It seems that discussion is, to date, wholly inadequate.