Apple has removed the Parler social network app from the App Store for violating policies, including not providing an updated moderation plan or an updated app with objectionable content removed.
Since the U.S. Capitol Building riot on January 6th, 2021, there has been an increase in social networking posts that incite violence against politicians, law enforcement, and organizations that supporters,
Many of these posts are found on the conservative social network app Parler and contain threats to Vice President Pence, police, and even Twitter.
Honest question for @AppStore and @GooglePlay.
— Sleeping Giants (@slpng_giants) January 7, 2021
If Parler continues to allow incitement and calls for violence, doesn’t that break your Terms of Service for apps? pic.twitter.com/CkXg99Trl7
Yesterday, Buzzfeed News obtained an email Apple sent to Parler stating that the app is breaking numerous policies related to the user content displayed within the application.
"Your CEO was quoted recently saying "But I don’t feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform, considering we’re a neutral town square that just adheres to the law.” We want to be clear that Parler is in fact responsible for all the user generated content present on your service and for ensuring that this content meets App Store requirements for the safety and protection of our users. We won’t distribute apps that present dangerous and harmful content," reads a letter sent to Parler yesterday and published by Buzzfeed.
For the app to be available in the Apple App Store, Parler must remove all objectionable content from the app, create a moderation improvement plan, and resubmit the application binary for review.
"To ensure there is no interruption of the availability of your app on the App Store, please submit an update and the requested moderation improvement plan within 24 hours of the date of this message. If we do not receive an update compliant with the App Store Review Guidelines and the requested moderation improvement plan in writing within 24 hours, your app will be removed from the App Store," Apple warned in the email.
Saturday night at approximately 8 pm EST, Apple removed Parler from the app store, and it is no longer available to install on devices.
In a statement to BleepingComputer, Apple stated that the app was removed from as Parler did not adequately address the threats of violence posted on their service.
"We have always supported diverse points of view being represented on the App Store, but there is no place on our platform for threats of violence and illegal activity. Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety. We have suspended Parler from the App Store until they resolve these issues," Apple told BleepingComputer in a statement.
Below is the full statement sent to Parler explaining why the Apple App Review Board removed the app.
To the developers of the Parler app,
Thank you for your response regarding dangerous and harmful content on Parler. We have determined that the measures you describe are inadequate to address the proliferation of dangerous and objectionable content on your app.
Parler has not upheld its commitment to moderate and remove harmful or dangerous content encouraging violence and illegal activity, and is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.
In your response, you referenced that Parler has been taking this content “very seriously for weeks.” However, the processes Parler has put in place to moderate or prevent the spread of dangerous and illegal content have proved insufficient. Specifically, we have continued to find direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action in violation of Guideline 1.1 - Safety - Objectionable Content.
Your response also references a moderation plan “for the time being,” which does not meet the ongoing requirements in Guideline 1.2 - Safety - User Generated content. While there is no perfect system to prevent all dangerous or hateful user content, apps are required to have robust content moderation plans in place to proactively and effectively address these issues. A temporary “task force” is not a sufficient response given the widespread proliferation of harmful content.
For these reasons, your app will be removed from the App Store until we receive an update that is compliant with the App Store Review Guidelines and you have demonstrated your ability to effectively moderate and filter the dangerous and harmful content on your service.
Regards,
App Review Board
For those who already have Parler installed on their Apple devices, the app will continue to work.
Comments
DrkKnight - 3 years ago
It is called freedom of speech and is protected under the first amendment, you know that paper called the Constitution that everyone seems to love wrapping themselves in these days? You don't have to like what I you or anyone has to say or write, you don't have to listen or watch but EVERYONE has the freedom to say what they want to say regardless if anyone else agrees or disagrees with them. The minute companies and Social Media platforms start suppressing ides or ideals they deem not in line with that they agree with we have become a Socialist Police State.
ShortTimer - 3 years ago
You're confused on what the first amendment is. Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon are private companies with their own terms of use, fail to comply and you get kicked off the platform. Parler wasn't censored by the state, they are free to distribute their app in other ways (Apps can be downloaded without G Play or the App Store) and create their own cloud service.
Dominique1 - 3 years ago
Apple apps can be installed without the Apple Store, and no need to root the device.
Sup3rus3r - 3 years ago
It's simple, purge apple into oblivion install linux or degoogled android for your mobile and be free of that toxic apple and co..
ShadowUser - 3 years ago
I think some people here don't know what the First amendment actually entails.
The first amendment doesn't protect free speech hosted on corporate platforms. It never did.
If I am the CEO of my own one-man company and I buy my own server for a website called "techie.com", then I get to decide wha gets put on my website. If I don't want any political talks on it, then the constitution doesn't somehow magically force me to host your political blogpost if you try to upload that stuff on my server. Maybe I hate politics and don't want to read about it. Maybe allvI want on my server is pictures of retro computers. Your first amendment doesn't mean you just get to fill MY computer with ehatever it is you want to share through my platform. It's as simple as that
DrkKnight - 3 years ago
Well then it needs to be , that is the problem, this is why there are those in government that want these big tech companies broken up . You cannot suppress the words of one and not the other because honestly there are lies and spew coming from both sides. Like I said, you don't have to read it , like it or listen to it but EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion whether you, Facebook, Twitter or Google likes it or not.
Lawrence Abrams - 3 years ago
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's the company who determines the policies around user content on their site. If a person doesn't like these policies, they are free to pick another service.
What we should all be agreeing on, though, is if a user (regardless of who they are) continues to break those policies, they should be booted. What site owner wants user posts that promote violence or make negative comments about race, gender, or religion?
It definitely would not be tolerated here.
Unfortunately, this tends to cause those who spew hate to congregate in one site. This leads to an echo chamber that just amplifies that hate without anyone expressing an opposite viewpoint.
Some-Other-Guy - 3 years ago
"MY" posts were not banned here because they promote violence or make negative comments about race, gender, or religion
"MY" comments were banned because they expressed an opposite viewpoint.
Comments that were based on FACTS and years of research
Prove me wrong with 'EVIDENCE" Lawrence Abrams
Don't just ban me, PROVE ME WRONG!
Some-Other-Guy
A.K.A. BULLWINKLE J. MOOSE!
Lawrence Abrams - 3 years ago
You're still here, we didn't ban you.
Send me the posts that were removed and I can look into it.
Some-Other-Guy - 3 years ago
BULLWINKLE J. MOOSE!
Posts removed recently related to HEIDOC WINDOWS ISO DOWNLOADER
Posts removed for the past several years related to Windows 10 Security / Spyware / Backdoors etc
and YES, I am still running Windows XP-SP2 ONLINE without ANY malware problems and doing so without ANY Microsoft security updates!
It "IS" completely safe for a real security expert like me
How about you?
Lawrence Abrams - 3 years ago
Privately send me the content of said posts and I can look into it.
And yes, we have heard your opinions about Microsoft/Windows ad nauseam.
Some-Other-Guy - 3 years ago
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/699803/is-it-safe/
ad nauseam....and still true!
Opposing views welcome!
EmanuelJacobsson - 3 years ago
Some-Other-Guy is a troll, I suggest not giving him the attention he wants.
cpunoob - 3 years ago
"I think some people here don't know what the First amendment actually entails.
The first amendment doesn't protect free speech hosted on corporate platforms. It never did."
was going to say something like this, but the delusions of grandeur lizard people loons are everywhere
ShadowUser - 3 years ago
By that logic then anyone can literally post anything on any website ever, without any rhyme or reason.
Have a cooking recipes website? Sorry, but I really hate Republicans so here's my 1000 word blog post masqueraded as an eggplant recipe. Want a forum where people talk about retro computers? No can do, I have to exercise my free speech to get back at the Democrat that talked about law xyz.
See where the problem is? Why should I let a random user just decide what content I serve, when I'm the one paying for the hardware, the electricity bill, maintancence, bandwidth and all the othet stuff? Just so you cab post whatever you want?
Sorry, but no. You want free speech? Make your own platform! Nobody says you have to use facebook, nor twitter. Those platforms can host anything they so desire because they worked to get where they are and a lot of money went into those projects. Even if I'm not Twitter's CEO, I think it's his right to choosebwhatever gets postrd on his platform. That's my two cents though
phocean - 3 years ago
It's more complicate than that, because most of these companies have some sort of monopolistic position.
You might create your own social media with freedom of speech, but you won't be able to reach your users due to the ban from software markets and eventually network operators (which is just the next step, as telecom neutrality is over nowadays).
So, in theory, freedom of speech exists.
But in reality, it does not exist anymore on the Internet, because a minority of people decided it should only express a single mindset.
ShadowUser - 3 years ago
I understand your points but I think the solution, in these cases, isn't to try to force private companies to have a "fairer" moderation policy (because then it always boils down to the "but who decides what fair is?" loopback question) but more to focus on what capitalism always tried to naturally have: more competition which always leads to more choice.
If facebook is indeed a monopoly, promote diversity by investing in new startups that try to offer more innovative features! Or, indeed, break it apart into multiple companies that each has its own role in society.
I'm not against this, these are viable, even necessary I'd say, solutions.
What I do find bad, however, is the idea to enforce what server owners get to distribute on their own platforms. Yes, echo chambers are bad but, ultimately, if I am a conservative individual that wants to distribute conservative news and even blatant lies on the internet, what gives you the right to come into my house and arrest me for "not promoting enough diversity in viewpoints"? How is that any different than a mad person who shouts on the street about "lizard men that took over the government". Yes, these people are wrong but prosecuting them for being wrong would just set an even more dangerous precedent for censorship. And if that responsibility for prosecution falls on the goverment then THAT is what's going to violate the First Amendment
the_moss_666 - 3 years ago
Sorry, but private property argument does not apply here. Not if there is a political monopoly (cartel to be precise). Term "censorship" should be re-defined to cover more then a government. When the censorship was defined, no one expected private companies will have more power than the government. Everyone expected there will be actually free market, on which the only motivation is money and every monopoly is crushed as soon as it becomes a problem. No one thought it would be necessary to keep track of not only economic monopoly, but political monopoly on free market as well. In a sense, these companies became political parties and that is very dangerous. Right now, they have their own political agenda, ideological monopoly and they have power to silence their opposition. All of this with no rules, no responsibility and no checks and balances. Also, censorship by proxy is a real threat.
Freedom of speech should be forced on private companies when they reach a certain coverage (they become a political monopoly) or when they become essential part of political discussion, as long as they have any political agenda or any recognizable bias.
astronomas - 3 years ago
I am not a lawyer, but these days’ platforms of big tech companies are the modern "town square". And the precedent exists in case of Marsh v. Alabama case. The basic outcome of that once a company reaches power levels of state (in that case it owned the town), it becomes beholden to same laws as the state (in that case freedom of speech). Again, I am not a lawyer and I do not know if a lawyer would agree with this argument, but I feel this precedent should apply here.
ShadowUser - 3 years ago
At this point, we're only speculating. If the idea of private property doesn't apply anymore or if the monopolistic nature is indeed cause for concern, then Congress will decide what a proper legislation change is needed. Or the Supreme Court will decide if there needs to be something done (assuming anyone is willing to prosecute Facebook or Twitter in court).
Personally, I think anti-trust measures should be enough to solve this problem, but clearly there are others that disagree. I said what I had to say
Citadel - 3 years ago
What a fine example to deplatform, in concert mind you, an American enterprise linked to political opposition... oh, but that is purely coincidence. I can't wait until the less-threatening types like Iran, Antifa, and others are also picked up by the expansive net of justice that is fair and equitable.
Whalley_World - 3 years ago
The simple fact is (and this summarizes the main issue I have with this whole thing) Parler itself is not the one "inciting violence." The users are running their virtual mouths exactly the same way that they do on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere. Most of those (like Alex Jones and his followers) have not been removed, but you can still download and install their apps from the app store. What I am seeing here are double standards, and that's the part that bothers me.
Lawrence Abrams - 3 years ago
From what I understand, Parler was not removed because of the content per se, but because they were not properly moderating threats of violence and removing it.
brokedude - 3 years ago
Lawrence, I have enjoyed bleepingcomputer and have gained significant knowledge from it. I however strongly disagree that that "properly moderating threats of violence and removing it" is a bunch of garbage. Twitter can permit hosting Iranian death threats and Anti Fa using Farcebook to organize violent "peaceful protests" while shutting down the speech of President Trump which had none of the threats of violence claimed. I call BS.
Lawrence Abrams - 3 years ago
You can disagree with me and still like BC :) Opinions are important, and though I may not agree with everyone's opinion, they are entitled to them.
From what I understand, the main issue is how Parler moderated content and that if they instituted a strong moderation system, Apple would reinstate them.
Parler was/is using a moderation system where volunteers determine what should be removed. Content inciting violence was allowed to stay even though they break policies. Some of this content advocated killing the Vice President, storming Amazon, and other hate posts.
If you told me that there were numerous posts on Twitter that incite this type of violence, and after reporting them, Twitter does not remove them, then they should face similar consequences.
I don't do whataboutism, which has unfortunately become so popular on both sides.
Wikipedia has some interesting info on the volunteer moderation and why it let posts that break policy to remain. I linked to the original article (WSJ) but it is paywalled. Added some other links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Moderation
https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-struggles-survival-amazon-lawsuit-trump-fans-11610414745
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/957234803/parler-executive-responds-to-amazon-cutoff-and-defends-approach-to-moderation
buddy215 - 3 years ago
Those that think Trump won by a landslide and there was massive fraud are the only ones complaining about Trump being banned. Those that think Trump and his gang telling the 5,000 plus mob gathered outside the White House to take action....attack those who are doing their sworn duty at the capitol was anything other than a failed coup promoted by Trump are the ones complaining about websites censoring.
There is an excellent video that those who want BOTH SIDES heard should watch. They represent all but the teacher in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw&feature=youtu.be