[Pils]

> Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter

Shows up for me: https://www.google.com/search?q=parler

If they didn't want to get banned from the app stores, they should've at least tried to follow the TOS. There is a subreddit dedicated to cataloguing all the death threats on the app, many of which are still up today: https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/top/?t=month.

Reddit, Facebook and Twitter have entire content moderation teams for this sorta thing. Why should there be a double standard for conservative social media sites?

[zadokshi]

The discussion is not about if a 'free speech app' can have a website. The discussion is about if a 'free speech app' can have an app.

[mbreese]

It’s also not even that. The discussion is if someone has to distribute a “free speech app”. The issue is a little more complex for Apple if/when they ban Parler, as you can’t (easily) side load apps on iOS. But Google only banned them from the Google Play store, thus limiting their distribution. You can still use the app, and side load to install. (I think this makes Android’s position a little more tenable here...)

They still have their app and website. And you can still get to their website from a phone.

[zadokshi]

Yea. No one is complaining that the "Parler" website has been banned. The issue is can a competing product have a comparable offering, including a proper native application with notifications, and all of the features only allowed to be used via native API calls.

[mbreese]

I'm not following... what is the competing product here?

Twitter?

Are you saying that Google should follow the same rules for Twitter and Parler? I think that the argument here is that they are applying the same rules -- if you don't moderate the content users post, you're out of the store.

[zepto]

Is there a difference between a ‘free speech app’ and a ‘death threat app’?

[qeternity]

Well for one, death threats are illegal and not protected speech under the 1A.