The article makes it clear that they weren't permanently booted.
> Asked by Wallace whether Apple’s booting of Parler, which had become popular among Trump loyalists as an alternative to Twitter and Facebook, would only serve to drive the app’s users “underground,” Cook responded, “Well, we’ve only suspended them, Chris. And so, if they get their moderation together, they would be back on there.”
It would be nice if people commenting on an article actually read it.
If we still had journalists, the most obvious follow up question is, "what are the moderation standards you've set that they need to meet, after which you will allow them back in?"
I think most people (fairly in my opinion) see that as PR/legal talk and that the bar (much like AWS) is set so high that they'll never make it (nor could Twitter/Facebook/etc).
If they want to go beyond PR/legal empty talk, they could provide a specific written standard. We could then evaluate it on its merits and compare it to other platforms to see if it's being evenly applied.
Yeah it would be hard to define, no doubt, although with Apple's limitless resources and huge power, I think they need to at least try. The current subjective whims are clearly not good enough and they've gotten so powerful that human judgment isn't acceptable. I would say the same about Twitter/Facebook/Youtube/etc.
I suspect the hardest part would be defining it in such a way as to disallow Parler but still allow Twitter et al. Which, kind of proves the point of people who are suggesting Parler is being held to a different standard than the others.
IIWM (which of course it is not) I would start with something like, "Platform has a system in place to provide early detection of explicitly violent content at a rate of at least ${x}%. Platform has a system in place to allow users to report content in violation of the platform, and review of reports is completed within ${y} hours."
Of course what is "violent" is subjective too. To some people talking about hanging a person is not violent, while to others calling someone by the wrong pronouns is violence. A common standard would indeed be hard, but I think it is important.
In principle, I have no problem with that. Transparency is good, and it can lead to better business behavior without more ham-fisted regulations that simply force businesses to do what the government wants. It's the "nutrition facts label" strategy.
But I really think a better solution is just allowing more app stores or third party app installation. Let people choose who they want curating their content. Apple can still enforce their own store policies like they want, and if enough consumers revolt, they have somewhere else to go.
Agree completely. Competition is the real solution. Apple surely won't do it by choice, but maybe the recent antitrust action will force their hand and this will all be moot.
> Asked by Wallace whether Apple’s booting of Parler, which had become popular among Trump loyalists as an alternative to Twitter and Facebook, would only serve to drive the app’s users “underground,” Cook responded, “Well, we’ve only suspended them, Chris. And so, if they get their moderation together, they would be back on there.”
It would be nice if people commenting on an article actually read it.