Apple approves Parler to return to App Store

According to a letter Apple sent to Congress on Monday, the company’s App Store has approved Parler’s return citing improvements the social media company made to better detect and moderate content. The decision clears the way for Parler, an app popular with conservatives, to be downloaded once again on Apple iPhones, iPads, and iPod touch devices.


Brian Fung for CNN Business:

The letter — addressed to Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Ken Buck and obtained by CNN — explained that since the app was removed from Apple’s platform in January for violations of its policies, Parler “has proposed updates to its app and the app’s content moderation practices.”

On April 14, Apple’s app review team told Parler that its proposed changes were sufficient, the letter continued. Now, all Parler needs to do is to flip the switch.

“Apple anticipates that the updated Parler app will become available immediately upon Parler releasing it,” Apple’s letter said.

MacDailyNews Take: When Parler reappears on the App Store, it’ll be the end of a sad chapter for Apple as had the company actually applied their reasoning for removing Parler from the App Store, Twitter, Facebook, and many other social media services would have been removed as well. It seems that trying to moderate as opposed to actually moderating and removing rule-breaking posts is all that counts.

Note: Parler returned to the web in mid-February. Visit MacDailyNews on Parler here.

See also:
• Sen. Lee, Rep. Buck question Apple’s, Google’s, and Amazon’s actions against Parler – April 1, 2021
• Parler still working on return to Apple App Store – March 11, 2021
• Apple pulls Parler from the App Store – January 9, 2021


          1. Thanls Tex, for ending that whole is it a ‘platform’ or a ‘publisher’ debate they’ve been having between Congress and Biased Woke Social Media companies!

          2. “The Government should have no role in forcing them to decide one way or the other.”

            We’re now officially in the bazaar-o-world. It is fascinating to see liberals now defending big industry. Being an old timer, I remember when liberals hated big industry.

            What do they really believe in? Nothing?!

          1. The Judiciary will only decide if somebody files a lawsuit in which that question is relevant. Whether Apple’s stated reason was adequate to keep Parler out of the App Store is only relevant if Apple needed a reason to keep Parler out of the Store. What is the basis for claiming that Apple has to carry every app that somebody submits? Safeway does not carry every brand of soup, and is not required to justify its decisions any more than Apple is.

            The platform v. publisher debate is not relevant either. Apple has never claimed to be anything other than a publisher with regard to its editorial decisions about App Store content. It does not publish every submission, but makes thousands of decisions every day about what to include and what to exclude. It never claimed to be a neutral platform open to all.

            Now, as a matter of fairness, one would hope that Apple has clear guidelines that it follows in a uniform manner that even the excluded developers would see as justified. However, as we learn very early in law school, very few acts that we might regard as unfair are also illegal.

      1. Really? That’s how you see it? So Reps like Maxine Waters and the idiots on CNN and BLMs which have been violent in their responses including the crap that used to come out against President Trump and you say Parler was extreme? We had freedom without being sanctioned by Liberals –

  1. Thank God Twitter and Facebook have also revised their policies in a similar way, and have stopped wanton censorship of anything not supporting the Marxist/Democrats and censoring everything about America that is supportive…oh… wait…🤔

  2. What it really looks like is the need for free speech and the same rules and enforcement across the board. Selective enforcement is hypocrisy and BS. This has been the first time since I started with Apple in ’82 that I seriously wanted to have an alternative. Company policy and politics is a very volatile mix so easily manipulated. How about stick to your expertise or go run for office?

    1. “Hate speech” is a bullshit term invented by leftist “progressives” who are threatened by actual free speech. They use “hate speech” to censor any speech they hate.

      It’s one of the few pieces of bullshit the “progressives” have come up with that they’ve actually named without lying about what it really is (depending on how you read it).

      If Apple’s problem were actually with “hate speech,” “Nazi symbols,” and “offensive uses of derogatory terms regarding race, religion and sexual orientation” (quoted from Apple’s letter to Parler when the App Store pulled the app) they’d have banned Twitter which still has all of these posts online:




    2. “There’s a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate!” Jeez, even Tom MacDonald knows that.

      And who made Apple and other Social Media Big Tech companies the arbiter of such things?

      Remember a time when the actions of these biased woke corporations just stuck to the business they created? Pepperidge Farms Remembers!

      1. Who made Apple the arbiter of such things? The same authority that allows Americans to own private property and control it as they see fit. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence argues that there were certain inalienable rights decreed by God and Nature, and that among them were “life, liberty, and property.” “The pursuit of happiness” was only substituted for rhetorical reasons, since the Framers agreed that the right to property (including the ownership of one’s own words) was essential to the happiness of any free people and the free citizens thereof. Therefore, the government only has the ability to regulate the use of property, not to deprive the owner of it without public necessity, due process, and adequate compensation.

        Stick to the business they created? The App Store is a business that Apple created, and they have the right to control it as they see fit, insofar as that is possible within the framework of laws that actually exist (as opposed to those that some might wish existed).

          1. They own the App Store which gives them the right to moderate what goes in there. My problem is that they do not enforce their guidelines uniformly and clearly favor some ideologies over others. Which is their right, but they should not pretend otherwise.

            1. Completely agree about their own store. The platform censorship is when they obstruct other stores from existing and require a license to code.

          1. Perhaps I should have put “insofar as that is possible within the framework of laws that actually exist” in bold print for you.

            Denying service at a lunch counter to blacks was arguably illegal since the very early 1950s and certainly illegal after 1964. It probably should have been illegal since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

            Denying somebody else the power to use your property to broadcast their message is not illegal, has never been illegal, and might well be constitutionally protected. If you do not like that, you can amend the Constitution just like Lincoln and the Republicans did in the 1860s.

            Which part do you find vile and disgusting, that some Americans choose not to assist in the spread of information they regard to be false and damaging propaganda, or that blacks were allowed to eat at Woolworth’s?

            1. TxUser, perhaps you should stick with facts and not fiction.
              That Woolworth’s store was merely following the Jim Crow laws passed by Democrats.
              They were following the racist laws that actually existed (thanks to Democrats). They were required to do that.

              Once again, you are a vile and disgusting POS.

            2. “Denying service at a lunch counter to blacks was arguably illegal since the very early 1950s and certainly illegal after 1964.” Woolworths was a corporation. So is Black Lives Matter. BLM got ready to protest march a cop shooting of a carjacker. They turned back after learning the man was white. Since BLM is incorporated, do they have to follow the 1964 Civil Rights Act? If BLM owned a lunch counter, would it be illegal of them to not serve whites? If so, then why is it not illegal for them to call off a protest march in progress, the call went out before the fact were known, which is pretty much BLM’s standard modus operandi, and ended the protest march before it began after learning the guy was white If he were black, those BLM idiots would have been on the streets! Seems discriminatory to me.

            3. Dude, the fact is that Woolworth’s was “required” to refuse to serve Blacks only in the same sense that the Blacks were “required” not to seek being served. The stores had the same legal right and moral duty as their customers to ignore state segregation laws that could not be enforced without violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Excluding Black customers was a choice, not a requirement.

              By 1961, when the sit-ins began, it was quite clear that the states could not enforce segregation, whether through their legislative, executive, or judicial branches. The Supreme Court had desegregated the public schools in 1954 and public bus systems in 1956. Residential restrictive covenants requiring racial or religious discrimination had already been ruled unenforcible in 1948. That reasoning also applied to state enforcement of racial discrimination in other contexts.

              I am quite confident that if Woolworth’s had chosen to desegregate in 1961 and face possible state prosecution, the Supreme Court would have thrown out any possible conviction. The store did not do that. Instead, management ordered the black customers to leave and had them arrested for trespass when they refused. That meant that the police and courts were only indirectly involved in racial discrimination, while Woolworth’s was involved directly and deliberately. Almost all white-run businesses in the South continued to voluntarily exclude Black customers until the practice became illegal with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

              Today, it would certainly be illegal for a business offering public accommodations operated by a Black businessman to turn away customers because they are white, female, foreign, or gay. I don’t believe that protest marches are public accommodations, so they are not required to treat white-on-white police violence the same as white-on-black violence. The shooting of innocent white men by white-run police departments is a Bad Thing, but it does not involve racial discrimination. Organizations directed specifically at fighting racial injustice are not required to dilute their impact by devoting equal resources to every other form of injustice.

              By the way, anybody who can try to justify racial discrimination really is a vile and disgusting POS.

        1. “The same authority that allows Americans to own private property and control it as they see fit.” (sic)

          Ha ha ha, that concept has long ago left the American experience. You are stuck in the past man!

        2. “The same authority that allows Americans to own private property and control it as they see fit.” Would that be the same authority that keeps infringing on the Constitutional Amendment regarding one’s right to bear arms? You know, to protect life and liberty from anyone or any entity that sees fit to try and take it.

          “Therefore, the government only has the ability to regulate the use of property, not to deprive the owner of it without public necessity, due process, and adequate compensation.” Infringement, plain and simple, but it does kind of cut down your argument of “…allows Americans to own private property and control it as they see fit.” You can’t control it as you see fit if government regulations prevent you from controlling it as you see fit in the first place.

          “The App Store is a business that Apple created, and they have the right to control it as they see fit…” As MDN’s takes so often include, it would be nice of Apple to apply it’s TOS and actions equally among the apps on the App Store, versus the discrimination and censoring Apple has shown itself capable of enacting, fairness be damned!

          Remember when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights use to be used as the framework of government and the limitations of government governing?

          Pepperidge Farms Remembers!

          1. You are creating a false dichotomy. It is not the case that the Government either has the power to do everything it likes or no power to do anything it likes. We are not confronted with a choice between tyranny and anarchy. The police power that is inherent to the very notion of government allows reasonable regulation of private conduct to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. However, that power must be exercised in a reasonable manner consistent with the individual’s right to do anything that does not violate a necessary regulation or harm another individual or their rights. The limits on government power are, first, that the government only has those powers that have been expressly delegated to it by the people and, second, that even those powers must be exercised within constitutional limits. The courts might ultimately differ, but I think that the First Amendment forbids the Government from telling Apple (or anyone else) that they have to promote ideas with which they disagree.

            I am not saying that discrimination on the basis of ideology is desirable, only that it is constitutionally protected.

    3. Dear Buster and other libturds,

      Orange man gone.
      Your life is not any better, in fact it’s worse, but you are too stupid to know it.
      You are still insufferable twatwaffles.

      1. I’m just glad the guy who offered to pay bounties on our soldiers is gone. Can you imagine our president proceeding with that plan? He really was Orange Man Bad.

        Oh wait, that story was bogus? Did the tedious man from Texas recant? Oh, he’ll try and it will be an explanation that looks like a corkscrew. He’ll surely pull a lot of info far & wide to make the simple quite complex. It’s all about preserving and presenting the narrative with that guy. Partial truth is fine by me.

        What about that Capital Cop the previous president killed? Can you believe that one? What kind of a president is that?

        Oh wait, he wasn’t hit in the head from something thrown by the insurgents (no gun found anywhere on the Cap grounds during the event)? He didn’t die from chemicals floating in the air either. Stroke? Isn’t that a natural occurrence?

        That was some pristine info provided by the platforms!

        1. Nobody ever said that Trump offered bounties on our soldiers. I certainly didn’t. It is, however, clear that he refused to condemn the Russian Federation after it offered–and paid–such bounties. The American soldiers were just as dead.

          It fits, I suppose, that the same folks who cannot grasp the concept of legal causation in the cases of George Floyd or 567,000 American Covid victims cannot grasp the notion that somebody who WAS attacked and subjected to chemical spray in the course of a clearly life threatening riot might have died of a stroke that he would NOT have had without the extreme stress that being in that situation might cause. The prosecutors may never be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, but I expect the civil attorneys in the inevitable lawsuit will do much better. The intentional infliction of extreme emotional distress would have been actionable even if the officer had not died from it.

          1. Geezuz, TxUser, can you lie any more? You are batting 0.00 on facts in this thread.

            Here are your friends on the leftist MSM lying about bounties:

            Here is another:

            Once again, you are a vile and disgusting POS.
            You should delete your account now.

            1. The bounty story came from two independent sources. The American intelligence community took it seriously enough to begin an investigation. To date, they have not found any additional evidence to support the original sources but they have not found any evidence to disprove them, either. The investigation is still ongoing. I probably should not have been so strong about the story being certainly true, but to say it has been refuted is flatly untrue.

        2. “Did the tedious man from Texas recant? Oh, he’ll try and it will be an explanation that looks like a corkscrew.”

          No, he will just lie like all liberals do. They can’t help it.

  3. This entire play was soooo hypocritical it’s amazing. FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, they have contact that breaks moderation rules constantly, constantly. Yet Parler, a threatening up and coming platform, gets destroyed. So pathetic. So pathetically, politically obvious.

    Regardless of political bent, it would be so nice to see not only Parler but many platforms spark growth to take on the giants of social tech.

  4. Apple approves Parler to return to the app store. Hey Apple, haven’t you got the message from Coke, United and other “woke” corporations?

    Be less White!

  5. Apple, Facebook, Twitter got Trump out of office by siding with the woke left. Wait until the woke left comes after Apple, Facebook & Twitter because you know their day is coming.

    Timmy is destroying what Apple was for identity politics.

        1. local russian troll says fascist dictators who committed mass murder in order to, in their own words, RETURN TO AN EARLIER CONSERVATIVE TIME WHEN THEIR PREFERRED ISOLATED TRIBE HAD LESS COMPETITION.

          imagine the humiliation when the NAZI xenophobes were defeated at the olympics, with great men like Jesse Owens proving that the American ideal that all humans are created equal is a superior value system.

          if only you people here on mdn actually believed in such American ideals. you’re too busy drinking the divisionist russian / faux news / parler koolaid to bother listening to fellow Americans who don’t look exactly like you!

Reader Feedback

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