Parler still working on return to Apple App Store

Parler’s chief policy officer Amy Peikoff says the social network still trying to get its app back into the App Store after Apple reportedly rejected its bid to return.


Parler has spent two months trying to address Apple’s concerns that got the Parler app booted from Apple’s store in early January.

Noah Manskar for The New York Post:

After Parler relaunched in mid-February with new community guidelines in place, Apple told the startup that it had not done enough to comply with its policies against objectionable content, according to reports.

In a statement Thursday, Parler chief policy officer Amy Peikoff said the company has tried to show Apple the steps it’s taken to root out harmful posts.

They include using a “combination of algorithmic filters and human review” to remove content that threatens or incites violence and implementing a feature that lets users filter out nasty language about “immutable and irrelevant characteristics” like race or sex.

“Parler expects and hopes to keep working with Apple to return to the App Store,” Peikoff said. “We’re optimistic that Apple will continue to differentiate itself from other ‘Big Tech’ companies by supporting its customers’ choice to ‘think different’ — to exercise their constitutionally protected freedoms of thought, speech, and association — while using Apple products.”

MacDailyNews Take: As Apple’s stated reasons for banning Parler would, if applied fairly and uniformly, also result in the App Store banning of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and basically every other social network where users are allowed to post, yet those apps all remain readily available despite easily-accessible objectionable content (some of which is well over half a decade old, no less), we wouldn’t advise Parler to hold their collective breath for reinstatement into Apple’s App Store.


    1. Quite possibly one of the most uninformed comments imaginable. Not based on any known facts, but hey, we live in a society where facts no longer matter. So please, can you find one example of Parler management old or new where their stated goal was to foster hate speech? Free speech is not hate speech.

      1. No one, other than the extent of the law should be able to censor anyone on their own property. So all you bigoted, anti-constitutional, seditionist, fascist MFers are actually right. Apple is wrong, and I am vindicated.

        1. More FACTS ARE FUN:

          “After Parler relaunched in mid-February with new community guidelines in place, Apple told the startup that it had not done enough to comply with its policies against objectionable content, according to reports.”

          TRANSLATION: Conservative Censor in Chief and Lockdown Liberal Tim Cook exploiting Section 230 for his own ideology, NOTHING, will be good enough for Apple coming from Parlar.

          As many others have already posted — Double Standard Cook ALLOWS extreme leftist HATE on Facebook, Twitter and other Apple App Store Apps. Double Standard Cook does NOT allow anything remotely resembling his definition of conservative hate speech. What’s good for THEE, is not good for ME.

          “We’re optimistic that Apple will continue to differentiate itself from other ‘Big Tech’ companies by supporting its customers’ choice to ‘think different’ — to exercise their constitutionally protected freedoms of thought, speech, and association — while using Apple products.”

          Fat chance, under SJW Apple CEO Tim Cook, “Think different” today means think as WOKE Leftists. The same Cancel Culture we see daily in the Biden administration, preaching Pelosi and Schumer, Liberal Big Media and Big Tech Social Media.

          Alternative free speech NOT ALLOWED. AOC and the Squad support “deprogramming” along racist lines for those that dissent, and no such deprograming for woke Black Power, BLM, Antifa and La Raza activists. The hypocrisy is off the charts:

          AOC dingbat did not stop there. The brown shirt former bartender member of Congress presented yet another threat to constitutional freedoms we all enjoy, to cancel and ostracize freedom fighting PATRIOTS, working for and supporting President Trump:

          Bottom Line: Cook and his woke Silicon Valley CEO leftist buddies pose a greater threat to internet freedom and free speech like we have never seen before.

          Steve is rolling in his grave…

      1. You are talking about Apple, Facebook and Twitter, right. Except they all totally ban any speech they disagree with. They are just degenerate bullies who are too stupid to defend their own views or even allow open discussion. Facts bother them.

    2. The difference is that those other sites only permit hate speech directed toward conservatives. Facebook and Twitter and Google and Apple now exist to enforce the one Truth of the State. As in 1984 and Brave New World and as done by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Apple is now a Thug Company that takes its orders from the Communist Chinese and the Communist Democrat Party.

      1. I agree with one thing you said Kent- Apple is a company. They are perfectly entitled to allow and bar people and speech as they see fit. Aren’t conservatives the ones who continually raise this point? When a business wants to ban gay people, conservatives cheer; they say it’s that business’s prerogative because it’s in line with conservative ideology. But when a business bans conservatives and conservative speech, all of a sudden it’s an outrage. Which is it? Be consistent please.

        Truth be told, I think most adults should be able to decide for themselves. Arguing the actual policies is much more interesting to me than 5th grade ad hominem attacks like libturds and retrumplicans, but this is the internet…

          1. According to many conservatives it is. Conservatives love to cancel people who criticize them and differ from their views- even their own- Liz Cheney, etc… But when Conservatives get canceled for their views, they immediately play the victim and whine about being cancelled. So as I asked before, which is it? Let people decide for themselves.

        1. Conservatives however don’t cheer when businesses ban gay people. A perfect example was the cake shop controversy. Liberals frequently said that the issue was about gays being banned from buying cakes because they were gay but that was never the case and never something conservatives would have ever cheered over. For the record, the gay customers in question were always allowed to buy cakes from that shop. The shop’s owner simply said that you’re welcoming to come here, we will always sell you product from our entire product line though we will not sell you a wedding cake and thus violate our religious principals.

          1. Kind of like “You colored people are welcome to shop at Woolworth’s and spend your money here, but we will not let you eat at the lunch counter and thus violate our religious principles against race-mixing.”

      1. According to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it is the platform owner who decides what should be excluded as “objectionable,” not any outside party and certainly not the government.

        1. Yes, Section 230 allows Leftist internet companies the right to CENSOR, DISCRIMINATE and SILENCE political free speech they do not like.

          Their discriminatory practices, potentially criminal in the real world without special carved out Section 230 protections, are shielded from lawsuits. The law is OUTDATED crafted in the 1990s when the birth of the internet was growing and becoming mainstream.

          If and when Section 230 is changed or repealed as it should be, I can imagine two game changing lawsuits:

          1~ Parlar sues Apple for DISCRIMINATION and DAMAGES ruining their business model accusing them of hate speech, while at the same time allowing hate speech on many other apps.

          As we have seen for months now, hate speech from the Left is perfectly acceptable and hate speech from the Right is censored and banned. As MDN and various authors have written, Leftist HATE speech is still allowed on half dozen App Store social media apps, but sorry Parlar, you are a conservative favorite and denied.

          2~ Former President Trump sues Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, Google, et al for censorship, defamation of character, unequally applied terms of service, simply because he is an America First Patriot.

          That said, no one can accuse TxHypocrite of fairness for ALL. A Liberal Democrat partisan SHILL is evident in every post and not the person you want running schools, universities, courts, law enforcement, government or your local church. We need fair minded people who accepts all points of view and free speech, particularly in these Cancel Culture times.

          Obviously, TxHypocrite you repeatedly defend and agree with Apple and other Social Media apps censorship and ABUSE of POWER. Gee, what a surprise…

          1. I can see another consequence of repealing Section 230. Tim Cook cannot sue you for libel or intentional infliction of emotional distress for publishing lies about him because he does not know who you are. He currently cannot sue MDN because of 230. Repeal 230 and that changes. The owners will have a choice between censoring your potentially actionable comments and opening themselves to liability. Result: less free speech, rather than more.

            I don’t have the money to sue them into oblivion, but Tim Cook does. I don’t know that he has the inclination, but there must be somebody on the left who is as litigious as Mr. Trump (who sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Republican National Committee this week for using his name and image in fundraising without giving him a cut of the action).

            1. The sooner this onerous law is repealed, the better. Sue away, it is the American way! 70% of the world’s lawyers, last time I checked, live in the USA. These sacred cow social media darlings of the Left have gone too far and must be held accountable.

              “The owners will have a choice between censoring your potentially actionable comments and opening themselves to liability.”

              Thank you for making my point. I just chuckle at Leftist fear mongering, you have no idea what will happen Mr. Know It All and how it will shake down. These companies censoring free speech and conservations already CENSOR, hello? I repeat, they already CENSOR, hello?????

              The difference, you will NEVER acknowledge, is they censor conservatives which you totally agree with. Please tell me I’m wrong and stop dancing around your obvious hidden agenda.

              No, it’s former President Trump to you he still lives rent free in your head is OFF TOPIC and another DEFLECTION. I’ll just say he has every right, so stick it!…

            2. Of course they review content and delete objectionable material. They don’t have a choice. The Communications Decency Act requires them to do it. If you want to call that “censorship,” be my guest. The required screening means that they cannot claim immunity as a neutral common carrier like the phone companies.

              Currently, all they have to screen for is material that poses a danger to public safety. We obviously differ on whether calling for a large crowd to assemble in Washington and storm the Capitol is dangerous. Who gets to decide? Under 230, the platform gets to make the decision, not the litigant who can afford the most lawyers.

              If 230 were repealed, social media, websites, and web hosting services would also have to screen for defamation. Any errant comment on a website would expose the operator of the website and arguably the web server to liability as the publisher of a libel. No rational person would accept the risk of allowing an unscreened forum, and it would not be cost-effective to provide that level of screening. Even if they could, it would not protect them from being sued both for the comments that got through AND those that were deleted. The only people left on the Internet would be those who can afford their own web servers and litigation attorneys.

      2. Joe is incapable of deciding which flavor of Ensure to drink today, so leave Grandpa Gropes out of it. He’s just a mindless puppet of the establishment left.

          1. And this from the supporters of a man who paid someone a six-figure salary in taxpayer funds for being a Press Secretary who did not hold a single press conference.

          2. Awesome and certainly defines the CLUELESS and swamp creature fraud president. He can’t carry Trump’s jock strap the dementia wuss. Hey, climb some more stairs on camera…

    3. “curtail misinformation”. WTF, Jennifer?!? There’s a tweet about a woman with no known health problems who received a COVID vaccination and died four days later being labeled by Twitter as ‘Misleading”! What’s misleading Twitter, the fact that she received her COVID vaccination or that she had no known health problems or the fact that she is dead? What the Hell is misleading?

      Screw you idiot Social Media and the morons you are creating due to your disgusting existence!

      “Curtailing” my fat ass!

      1. I love how Twitter in their labeling ignorance states that COVID vaccines are safe for most people.

        “MOST” people.

        Apparently, this lady didn’t fall in the ‘most’ category Twitter, so you scumbags should retract your stupid label!

        “In The Matrix, the main character Neo is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill by rebel leader Morpheus.” “The terms “red pill” and “blue pill” refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth, by taking the red pill, and remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.” – Wikipedia

        “contented ignorance with the blue pill” no wonder Twitter’s color is BLUE!

        1. Correlation is not causation. It is undisputed that the woman got the shot and died four days later. What is misleading is to suggest that the shot caused the death while it is still under investigation. As with any other vaccine, the decision to remain unvaccinated poses a danger to other people, and it should not be encouraged unless there is some proof of a danger. Informed consent should be based on information, not speculation.

          1. So, what you are saying Tex, is that the COVID death count is inaccurate when the idiots in government and the TikTok medical profession would count someone who is COVID positive but who ceased living due to head trauma from their motorcycle accident on the highway or a COVID positive person falling off a ladder, breaking their neck and ceased living, as being an “official” death count from COVID.

            Is that what you mean Tex, about “correlation is not causation.” Funny how that gets sparingly applied.

            “the decision to remain unvaccinated poses a danger to other people”… First, danger to other people is not of my concern when it comes to danger to myself. Second, COVID has a higher percentage survival rate if you have it, then the person in the womb has at an abortion clinic, and if women can tell the government to stay out of their uterus, their body, their choice if they want to kill their baby, certainly other people have the right to tell government to stay out of their “veins” and to not be vaccinated in fear of a deadly reaction to the vaccine, that is, according to the asshole experts at Twitter, “MOSTLY” safe. Otherwise, you would be getting into that Constitutional equal protection clause if you do not agree! And you wouldn’t want to open that can of worms now would you? And don’t even pretend to tell me, everyone practiced COVID prevention safety measures during the year long lockdown, from jerkoff politicians, news media, rioters,

            “based on information, not speculation”, Hell, without speculation, you wouldn’t have the internet because it sure isn’t information, but don’t worry, with Mr. Potato Head occupying the White House, COVID numbers are miraculously dropping versus where they would be if the rightful winner were there. So, hedge your fears Tex, the virus is going away because the correct party is in power and the Woke Fake News Masturbating Media can take a breather!

            1. I stopped reading after “danger to other people is not my concern.” We clearly live in such different ethical universes that we might as well be speaking mutually incomprehensible languages.

            2. From the CDC website:

              Over 92 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 8, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,637 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS.

            3. To put that in context, the mortality rate for those who become infected with the novel coronavirus is roughly 1.7% (not 0.0018%), and each infected person infects, on average, one other person who also has a 1.7% chance of dying. As the new strains become established and mandatory public health measures are dropped, tihe infection rate will rise above one and the case rate will begin to grow exponentially, absent widespread vaccination.

            4. So, Tex admits here cannot read and handle your truths, The:Borg.

              Leftists cannot argue facts, only cherry pick to support their agenda and WORSE, totally incapable of analyzing the whole picture. So typical, when elitist dogma substitutes for facts.

              Yes, babies killed in the womb is just fine with Tex, obvious because he has NEVER spoken out or opposed. But when less than 1%, last time I checked, died from Covid and up to 70% are over 65 years old with pre-existing conditions — OMG!


            5. When was “the last time you checked?” The raw case mortality rate has never been less than 1.7%, not your less than 1% lie. You picked that 70% over 65 with preexisting conditions number out of thin air, but even if it were true, that still leaves 160,000 younger victims. Apparently you think the other 372,000 vctims were old farts not worth saving.

            6. I gave myself almost 48 hours to consider this response, GeoB, but I finally decided that I could not let your moral vacuity go unremarked:

              When was “the last time you checked” on what Pro-Life means within the Roman Catholic Church, since you have claimed to be both Catholic and Pro-Life? It does not just include opposition to abortion, but also to euthanasia. Yet you don’t see a problem with policies that knowingly kill hundreds of thousands of the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve who are in the last three decades of their life expectancy.

              The current Roman Pontiff has strongly supported vigorous public health measures, including universal vaccination, because he really is Pro-Life. Read the Book.

    4. Jen, you expect us to believe you are a conservative? You threw Parler under the bus and misrepresented their business beginnings. WTF? Doesn’t even pass the laugh test. You have spoken out against hate speech of half dozen social media apps that spew hate daily. Case closed…

    5. you lie ! You are a hateful bigot. You spread misinformation. You accuse and judge people of the very sin your self-righteous evil soul is guilty off.

      “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16)

  1. Buster, anyone can say anything. TxUseless has been LYING about branding himself and I quote, “Conservative Republican” for over five years. Pay attention, your words define your political position, not a check box on a county registration form. Get a grip…

Reader Feedback

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