Tim Cook: Parler can return to App Store if they comply with Apple’s terms of service

Parler can return to the App Store according to Apple CEO Tim Cook, but they must first comply with the company’s App Store Terms of Service.

A handful of Big Tech companies including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon moved to take down Parler over the weekend and Amazon’s cancelation of AWS hosting services forcing the Parler website offline, prompting a lawsuit by Parler against Amazon. Apple on Saturday followed Google and pulled Parler from the App Store.

Tim Cook: Parler can return to App Store if they comply with Apple's terms of service. Image: Parler logo
Parler logo
Wesley Hilliard for AppleInsider:

Apple CEO Tim Cook said Parler could return to the App Store in an interview with CBS on Wednesday morning. The app needs only to comply with Apple’s Terms of Service to be reinstated, but it may be more complicated than that.

“Parler has some issues with moderation,” Cook said. “Our hope is that they do that and get back on the store.”

“We suspended them, we did not ban them,” Cook added, responding to a question referring to Parler’s CEO. “We have Terms of Service for our App store, and some of those Terms of Service he’s in violation of. All we’re asking is he meet the Terms of Service.”

MacDailyNews Note: Cook was on CBS This Morning to announce new new projects as part of Apple’s $100 million “‘Racial Equity and Justice Initiative.” Read more here.

52 Comments

  1. Yup. That’s exactly the right answer. Parler was left untouched on the platform until it violated the terms by inciting violence. Parler should be allowed back once they get the sh*t together. All you pearl clutching free speech (unless it’s not to your liking) tub thumpers can relax now. Can we get back to talking about apple products and services now?

    1. You do know that Facebook was used to coordinate the Capitol “siege” and that Twitter incites violence every single second of every single day, but Apple has never “suspended” either of them, right?

      What you fail to see is that Tim Cook is reading the public’s response to Apple removing the Parler app, seeing that he overplayed his hand, and is now trying to walk back his mistake.

        1. oh, my gosh, txuser. i’m sorry but i really have to call you out, STOP being so partisan and defensive, try being honest. PEOple like jack dorsey, mark zuckerberg, sundar pichai and others of their strain have been given enormous power and have misused that power. FOR LACK of sound judgment and self-awareness, they’ve allowed and encouraged their ‘fact checkers’ to suppress the rights of american citizens to dialogue and express opinions with which they disagree and that is just the least of their selective thumps. YOU keep referring to conservatives as bad actors when, in fact, facebook and twitter are rotten to the core with some of the most threatening and debased diatribes ever witnessed in the new digital world and allowed to stand. STOP operating with only half your brain, txuser. just be honest. it’s liberating.

          1. Awesome takedown of partisan TxLiar and number one Apple Apologist on MDN! Unfortunately, his self righteous wrong headed know it all attitude will not change. He will never admit he is wrong or partisan so we continuue to call him out. It is what it is and he has ZERO CREDIBILITY…

      1. It’s not any company’s job to dispense justice. They can carry whatever they chose. The guidelines they put are so that they can buy some faith from developers.

        Where I do agree is that Parker should have other opportunities to distribute its iOS app, even if that means it’s own store.

        1. I agree. But with great power comes great responsibility. Apple is the biggest player on the block. They should apply equal standards to all developers.

          It’s fair for Tim to allow Parler back when they comply. Going forward It is equally important that all developers are treated equal.

          It’s good to see Tim tying to find a way forward. Parler and apple should work together to find a solution that best suites the concerns of both companies.

          AAPL is up 2.46 @ 131.26

            1. Actually, that Woolworth’s store was operating under the law. They were segregating as required by Jim Crow laws passed by Democrats.

              Democrats are doing it again. Section 230 protects Big Tech in these unconstitutional acts. Democrats will continue to protect section 230 while they continue to collect $millions from Big Tech and get protection through Big Tech censorship of their political opponents.

            2. You are, of course, completely misrepresenting what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides. It does not give protection to FaceBook and Twitter for what they choose not to post, only for what they do put online.

              The Act as a whole requires web services to monitor and delete child pornography, terrorist recruiting videos, and similar material. So it is not legally possible to provide a completely uncensored and uncurated service. The legal issue that created is that the courts had held that any service that curated user content became a publisher and was therefore liable for defamatory material that got past the curation. A service was only free of that liability if it was a common carrier that allowed its users to post absolutely anything without curation… something that the Decency Act had made a criminal offense.

              The “fix” for the problem was Section 230, which granted the services immunity from liability for user-posted material. Without 230, sites like MDN would have to accept full liability for any defamatory statement (or IP infringement) contained in an article it promotes or in one of our comments. They would have three choices: find the money to hire sufficient staff to read and fact-check every posting, accept open-ended liability for our comments, or block comments completely. I’m guessing that they, and most small sites with limited resources, would have chosen to block all comments. That is precisely the argument that Internet users made to convince Congress to pass Section 230.

              That problem still exists. Repealing 230 without providing an alternative form of protection would simply shut the Internet down. Anybody who posted a comment or a link could be sued if the linked material was determined to be defamatory. The failure to properly fact-check every assertion could be seen as “reckless disregard for the truth,” allowing suit by even a public figure like a politician or real estate tycoon. Powerful rich men could afford to sue in an effort to suppress criticism, while poor men could not afford to defend themselves. Sites like FaceBook might have enough revenue to afford adequate fact-checking and liability insurance. Smaller sites like MDN certainly would not. The result would be even less competition and less choice in the on-line universe. Those of us who do not have our own sites would be silenced.

            3. @Some Dude

              I’m unfamiliar with the Woolworth’s case. I’ll look it up.
              But as you’ve already elaborated, unjust Jim Crow laws have already been struck down, and those democrats are now Republicans.

            4. @Some Dude, history shows that the Jim Crow laws could really only be upheld (when it was still part of the law) while there were ‘separate but equal’ facilities for both Whites and Blacks. In the Woolworth’s case the 4 black men were entirely in their right to sit at the counter since there were no ‘Black’ counters at which to be served.

      1. Really?? Based on your ‘proposal’ I think we can assume that you are neither an Apple stock holder nor an Apple user. If you are then you are proposing the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

        1. Apple would be worth more, with more worldwide Mac and iPhone market share without the drag that is the self-righteous SJW Tim Cook wasting the company’s money and brand value on his own virtue-signaling pet projects.

      2. Partisan SJW HYPOCRITE Cook limiting free speech in their App store, but buckle and comply under Communist China pressure in a heartbeat and say nothing of censorship in China. Yes, Cook please resign A.S.A.P you are not fair and balanced or a fighter for freedom you are THE poster child for corporate hypocrisy…

        1. I’m not quite clear why you think the tragic fact that the People’s Republic of China has a totalitarian government that dictates what companies can or cannot say justifies giving the same powers to the United States Government.

    2. Violence threats against Trumpers. Just on is this post on Facebook by Cynthia Johnson, a Michigan representative. This has been on facebook, and to my knowledge never removed. She was telling “trumpers” that they better watch out and she was calling to action “those who are soldiers” that they be dealt with and made to pay..Now she is backtracking yet it is still on youtube.

      Other actions were threats to Conservative lawmakers and showing up at there house.

  2. It’s publicly available to see that Twitter and Facebook have done a far better job than Parler to suspend violent behavior. Parler did not. This may be a function of their app being garbage and not having the resources to build an algorithm to help them keep on top of it.

    I am no fan of Twitter or Facebook – Facebook especially. But you can check the receipts that Parler was not banned but suspended based on violations of terms of use. Parler should be allowed back when they can find better app developers – perhaps one of the morons that stormed the capital could have made better decisions in life and learned to code.

    I was on Parler too and it was a sh*t show too. Social media in general is bad for your mental health and you have to approach them cautiously.

        1. When God passed out brains,

          You thought He said trains,

          And You missed yours.

          When God passed out looks,

          You thought He said books

          And didn’t want any.

          When God passed out ears,

          You thought He said beers

          And asked for two long ones.

          When God passed out legs,

          You thought He said kegs

          And asked for two fat ones.

          When God passed out noses,

          You thought He said roses

          And asked for a big red one.

          When God passed out heads,

          You thought He said beds

          And asked for a big soft one.

          When God passed out hips,

          You thought He said lips

          And asked for two large round ones.

          God am I a mess, you quipped.

          1. Well if it ain’t the man from Nantucket,
            I tell you, my friend, you can suck it!
            You’re like the commode, so full and so old,
            You’re pumping out crap with a bucket.

    1. They literally state they don’t monitor your conversation, and that you are responsible for what you say. They do prohibit illegal behavior and do remove account of bad actors when this is violated. Parlor respects privacy and free speech with the same rules that have been used by the ACLU for court cases on free speech. How can Apple say they are not completely compliant?

  3. Consistency is a key ingredient for someone to have moral authority. As long as Apple doesn’t ban/suspend Facebook and Twitter then Tim and company are nothing more than holier than thou hypocrites.

  4. Tim Cook has made Apple an arm of the Chinese Communist Party. Tim Cook has destroyed all the goodness Steve Jobs poured into Apple. Tim Cook should not only resign, he should be indicted and convicted for treason.

    1. It’s the Apple App Store and they get to decide who goes there, just like it is your living room and you get to decide who goes there. The Government cannot require you to host black militants, and it cannot require Apple to host white supremacists. Fair is fair, and the First Amendment protects Apple just like it protects you.

      1. But Apple does allow black militants. Twitter app and Facebook app still in Apple’s living room dirtying up the whole damn house. When you pull out the Dyson to clean house, you clean the whole house. Otherwise, what is the point of doing a half ass job. And I thought it was against Apple’s nature to do a half ass job!

        “Fair is fair, and the First Amendment protects Apple just like it protects you.” What does the 1A protecting both Apple and I from limiting our free speech by government have anything to do with Apple “bricking” their products making them less productive and usable than they were a few short weeks before?

        Hey Apple, my Parler app does’t work and you lied to me, saying your products “just works”. Not true, Fuji.

        Lastly, what if January 20th arrives with a whole lot of crazy stuff that turns out were not Trump’s, not Republican, used Twitter to coordinate, used Facebook to plan, and these apps were readily available all the time on Apple’s App Store. How foolish will Apple look and would FBI consider them accomplices?

  5. Apple is so smart. Now they leave google play and Amazon out to dry. Now if/when Amazon and Google reverse their ban of Parler it will appear they are only reacting to Apple. But if they keep the ban then they will loose business of one of the fastest growing AAPs. Apple and Tim are the masters of “having your cake and eating it too”.

    By seeming reasonable and willing to allow Parler back on the App Store, Apple gains some favor with Parler supporters and they look like less on a monopoly; Apple looks like the adult in the room. While Google and Amazon look like the big tech monopolies that will only roll back the ban to copy Apple. Check mate Apple.

    Hats off Tim. Good job!

    1. Their is no way Parler would return to Amazon servers but Parler will gladly get back on iOS. And where they return Parler will be more popular then ever. Parler will most likely become the home of Trumps social following, so Parler gets 50 million users becomes the new Twitter, Apple host the app and gets all those users who then buy/continue to buy other Apple products and services. Amazon is screwed out of a giant client, Twitter is cut in half, Google looks like the copy cats we all know they are. Apple wins on 2 other fronts, they get points with the left for the band in the first place but they get points with the right for being the first big tech to play somewhat fair. Paler wins from all the free exposure.

      Apple is stone cold genius

    2. “But if they keep the ban then they will loose business of one of the fastest growing AAPs.”

      Google and Amazon would get what kind of income from Parler if it stayed? Unlike iOS, Android users have other outlets to obtain the App. The problem here is, is Parler willing to set up its own servers.

  6. See how Cook and the Cupertino Cowards who are always talking about how your Privacy is so dear to them, and yet, somebody posting on Parler, while it is not like writing “Dear Diary” and expecting privacy, excuse Twitter, Facebook, etc., isn’t it interesting how some at Apple went poking around and took censorship action based on the musings of someone’s thoughts. Yeah, take those privacy concerns you have Apple and shove ’em up your pathetic ass!

      1. Canada doesn’t get American taxpayer money, Sparky. Hell, we have a trade surplus with the US, so you’re getting more from our economy than we’re getting from yours.

        1. I’m pretty sure you have that backwards.

          The country with a trade surplus is gaining the wealth go the other nation.
          So in reality Canada is getting more from us, just like China is (although Canada is not the evil asshole China is…)

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.