Decentralization

Progressive Web Apps: Safeguarding the Freedom to Publish Apps

Bodhi

24 Jul 2025 — 11 min read

Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) hold the key to preserving free expression in the app ecosystem. Today, just two companies – Apple and Google – effectively control how most mobile applications are distributed, thanks to their dominance in app stores. This "duopoly" over mobile platforms means they act as gatekeepers deciding which apps (and by extension, which ideas) can reach users. Such concentrated control clashes with the ideals of free speech and open participation. In this post, we'll explore why software is considered a form of free speech, how the current app store model threatens that freedom, and why PWAs offer a vital, open alternative for developers and users who value sovereignty and decentralization in technology.

The App Store Duopoly vs. Free Expression

Mobile app distribution is largely funneled through Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store – platforms with near-total market reach. In theory, this centralized model ensures quality and security, but in practice it has often led to censorship and arbitrary control over what software you can publish or install. Both Apple and Google have policies that go beyond basic legality, barring apps for content they deem unacceptable.

Apple has repeatedly rejected or removed apps for political or artistic content, such as a game about conflict in Gaza that was initially blocked for being "too political." Apple's guidelines explicitly state they will refuse any app they believe "is over the line" – an opaque standard that an Apple reviewer can apply to almost anything. As Apple's own policy candidly admits: "What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, 'I'll know it when I see it'. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it." The result is a pattern of removals that many observers describe as inconsistent or censorial. Unlike a movie or book rating where consumers can still choose to buy the content, an App Store rejection completely bans all users from accessing that app on iOS.

Google's Play Store, while allowing Android users some workaround via side-loading, has similarly broad powers to ban apps. In one prominent case, Google and Apple both banned the social media app Parler from their stores over concerns about harmful content. With one decision, the two giants made Parler vanish from mainstream mobile devices, demonstrating how a duopoly of private companies can effectively silence an app's reach. Critics argue this power has "revoked the First Amendment on mobile phones" – not in a legal sense, but in effect, because if your speech platform (app) isn't approved by Apple or Google, it's as if you have no voice on mobile.

As tech writer Aaron Renn observes: "You cannot easily start a new mobile business without their permission. If your app follows the First Amendment (i.e., allows all legal content), there's a good chance that you'll be rejected." In short, two corporations act as governors of the mobile Internet, deciding which apps (and therefore which viewpoints or business models) are permissible.

The problems with this status quo include:

Hefty Gatekeeper Fees: Developers must pay for access and lose revenue. Apple requires a $99/year developer program membership, and app stores take a 15–30% commission on in-app sales – a significant cut that especially hurts small businesses.

Arbitrary Censorship: Both stores enforce content policies stricter than law. Apple in particular has banned apps for satirical political themes and other "objectionable" content, effectively censoring lawful speech if it offends Apple's standards. What's allowed can feel capricious, governed by Apple's "I'll know it when I see it" approach to content moderation.

Opaque & Unpredictable Reviews: App approvals can be erratic and opaque, with apps rejected without clear explanation. Developers have faced rejections for minor rule interpretations or sudden policy changes, making it unpredictable whether an app will be allowed. The frustrating review process adds unnecessary barriers to distribution.

Delayed Updates & Control: Even after approval, any update to an app must go through a review process. This slows down important fixes and changes, as updates require resubmission and can be delayed or rejected by the platform's review team. Developers are not fully in control of their own software's evolution or delivery schedule.

Closed Distribution: On Apple's iOS, there is no alternative distribution. If Apple bans your app, users simply cannot install it (barring rare jailbreaks). On Android, technically users can install apps from outside Google Play, but the process is cumbersome and most users never do it. Being banned by the big two means losing almost the entire mobile audience.

These issues raise serious concerns for free expression and digital sovereignty. If writing and sharing software is a form of speech, then app store gatekeepers are effectively acting as private censors. To understand why many see software distribution as a free speech issue, let's look at how code itself is speech.

Software as Free Speech

Is software code speech? In the eyes of the law (at least in the United States), largely yes. There is a rich legal history establishing that writing code can be an expressive act protected by the First Amendment. A landmark case was <a href="https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/bernstein-v-department-of-justice/" target="_blank">Bernstein v. U.S. Department of Justice (1999)</a>, where a federal court held that programming language is speech and is thus protected under the First Amendment – publishing source code is an act of expression. Daniel Bernstein, a cryptographer, had been barred by government regulations from sharing encryption software; the court struck those rules down as unconstitutional restraints on speech.

Similarly, in Junger v. Daley, a professor fought for the right to publish encryption algorithms and argued that code conveys ideas between people. As one scholar put it, denying protection to code just because "not many people understand it" would be like saying speech isn't protected if you speak it in Navajo – it's still speech. Courts have since repeatedly affirmed that computer code is speech and deserves First Amendment safeguards.

This doesn't mean anything done with software is immune from regulation (just as not all spoken words are protected – e.g. fraud, threats, etc.). But the core principle is crucial: creating and sharing software is a form of expression. It's how developers "speak" their ideas or enable others to communicate. Thus, when a mobile platform blocks an app from dissemination, it raises free speech issues in a broad sense. The app store duopoly imposes a stricter standard than U.S. free speech law, effectively limiting what developers can say through apps.

This is where Progressive Web Apps come in – to offer a way around those private chokepoints and to keep the "publishing" of software as free as the publishing of a website or a book.

What Are Progressive Web Apps (PWAs)?

A Progressive Web App (PWA) is essentially a web application designed to work on most web browsers. It's built using standard web technologies (HTML, JavaScript, CSS, etc.) but can be installed on a device and run offline in many cases, just like a traditional app. Importantly, a PWA runs in the web browser and does not require going through an app store for installation.

In practical terms, a PWA is a website with extra powers: it can work offline or in poor network conditions, send push notifications, load extremely fast, and be added to your home screen or desktop with an app icon. PWAs offer several key advantages:

Installable: Users can install PWAs directly on their devices for quick access – no app store needed. When visiting a PWA-enabled site, you often see a prompt like "Add to Home Screen," which gives it an icon and full-screen launch, making it feel just like any other app.

Offline-Capable: Thanks to technologies like Service Workers, PWAs store data locally, which enables users to access previously loaded content offline. This means the app remains usable (for previously loaded data) without an internet connection – a feature traditionally limited to native apps.

Cross-Platform: A single PWA can work on any device with a modern browser – be it Android, iOS, Windows, macOS, etc. Progressive web apps are created using a single codebase and can be used on both Android and iOS devices, so developers maintain one codebase and reach all platforms.

No Manual Updates: Because it's essentially web-based, a PWA is always up-to-date. Users always get the latest version without the need for app store visits or manual updates. This eliminates the delay and friction of app store update approvals.

Discoverable: PWAs live on the web at a URL, which means they can be indexed by search engines and shared via links like any webpage. Since PWAs function as websites with separate URLs, they are indexed by search engines and ranked accordingly. This open discoverability is a sharp contrast to native apps that are siloed in walled gardens – you typically only find those via the app store search or marketing, not Google search.

In essence, a PWA gives you the best of both worlds – the open accessibility of a website and the rich experience of a native app. Major companies have adopted PWAs: for example, Twitter's mobile site is a PWA ("Twitter Lite"), and even transportation apps like Uber offer PWAs that look and feel like native apps. For the user, a well-built PWA is often indistinguishable from a regular app. For our discussion, though, the most crucial aspect of PWAs is that developers can disseminate their application online as a website, and users can simply install it via their browser. This is a fundamental shift in the distribution model, with huge implications for freedom and sovereignty.

How PWAs Preserve Freedom in App Publishing

PWAs flip the script on app distribution. Instead of asking gatekeepers for permission, developers just publish their app to any web server and users can access or install it directly. This seemingly simple difference has profound consequences for openness and free speech:

No Gatekeepers or Permission Required: Anyone can deploy a PWA by uploading it to a web host, just like publishing any website. There's no mandatory review process or central authority deciding if your app can be published. As Google's own Chrome developers put it: "Linking, and the lack of gatekeepers to get your site online, give the web a better distribution model than app stores." In other words, the web is an open platform – if you can post a webpage, you can release a PWA. This permissionless publication is crucial for free expression: no corporation can unilaterally block your content worldwide. Even if an Internet provider or hosting service shuts a site down, the developer can move to a new host – there's no single choke point like a dominant app store that must approve you.

Bypassing Censorship: Because they are essentially websites, PWAs benefit from the decentralized nature of the web. Apple or Google cannot "ban" a PWA in the same way they can delist an App Store app. Users on an iPhone, for instance, can still navigate to a PWA via Safari and add it to their home screen, regardless of Apple's opinion on the content. This makes it far harder for a small number of companies to censor an application's distribution. As long as the app isn't outright illegal (which would involve government/law intervention, not just store policy), the developer is free to share it and users are free to access it. The open-web approach thus preserves a level of speech sovereignty: developers aren't at the mercy of a few gatekeepers' content rules, and users aren't limited to what those gatekeepers deem acceptable.

Developer Sovereignty and Control: PWAs give creators full control over their software from distribution to updates. You don't have to pay the 30% "app store tax" on your sales or subscriptions – you can monetize however you choose (or not at all) via the web. As one developer advocate notes, PWAs promised "freedom. No more bending the knee to app store overlords. No more arbitrary rejections, endless approval cycles, or the dreaded 30% cut of your hard-earned revenue." There are no forced revenue cuts or fees for being on the platform; the web has no built-in toll collector. You also decide when and how to roll out updates or new features – instantly and continuously if you want – with no one holding back your deployment. This autonomy is especially important for small independent developers and politically sensitive apps.

User Empowerment and Digital Decentralization: PWAs align with the ethos of decentralization by returning choice to users. Instead of being limited to the sanctioned apps in a walled garden, users can browse the open web and "install" any application they find useful or interesting. This fosters a more open, pluralistic digital landscape. It also reduces dependence on app store monopolies: for example, if an app like Gab or Parler is removed from official stores, users who still wish to access it can do so via its PWA (as long as they know where to find it) – effectively routing around the ban. In a broader sense, encouraging PWA adoption helps shift the balance of power back towards an open internet model, where no single corporation controls what software we run. It's akin to the freedom we've always enjoyed on the web (where any site can be visited) and on personal computers (where you can install any program you like). PWAs bring that same freedom to the mobile app realm.

"Write Once, Run Everywhere" Benefits: While not directly a free speech issue, it's worth noting that PWAs are economically and technically advantageous because a single PWA can reach all device types. This lowers the barrier for alternative and niche applications to exist, since a small developer doesn't need the resources to build and maintain separate iOS and Android apps. In turn, this diversity of apps enriches the ecosystem of ideas and services available – supporting freedom of choice. The linkability of PWAs also means they can spread organically: a user can share a PWA by just sending a link, no app store required. In the context of information and idea dissemination, that's a powerful feature – it leverages the open web's ability to spread content virally without central approval.

Conclusion: PWAs and the Future of App Sovereignty

Progressive Web Apps represent more than just a new technology trend – they embody a philosophy of openness and user/developer sovereignty. In a digital world where a handful of big tech companies exert immense control, PWAs reopen a channel that was nearly closed: the ability to freely publish and consume software without needing anyone's permission. This is fundamentally about preserving freedom of expression and innovation in the app space. Software has been recognized as a form of speech, and PWAs ensure that this speech can remain free and unfiltered, just like content on the web.

Of course, the PWA approach is not a magic bullet. The convenience and inertia of app stores are strong, and not every mobile user is familiar with installing web apps. In the past, companies like Apple have also been slow to grant web apps the same capabilities as native apps (partly to maintain their App Store's primacy). However, momentum is shifting. As of 2025, all major browsers and platforms have improved PWA support, and even Apple is gradually enabling features like push notifications for PWAs on iOS. The web community and regulators are pushing for even more openness – for instance, Europe's Digital Markets Act is forcing gatekeepers to loosen restrictions, which complements the rise of PWAs.

For developers and activists concerned with sovereignty, decentralization, and free speech, embracing PWAs is a practical step toward a freer app ecosystem. It's about choosing a distribution model that treats gatekeepers as a bug, not a feature – routing around centralized control in true internet fashion. The web's lack of gatekeepers and the ubiquity of hyperlinks make it inherently more free and resilient than any app store walled garden. By building and using PWAs, we reinforce the open web and ensure that the power to create and share applications remains in the hands of the people, not just a few corporations.

As one PWA advocate summarizes: "App store fees, lengthy review processes, and rigid guidelines make it challenging to connect with your community and manage your app experience freely. Progressive Web Apps offer a powerful alternative, giving you complete control over your app's reach, engagement, and updates—without app store restrictions or revenue cuts." In the end, keeping freedom of publication alive in the app world is essential to keeping the spirit of free speech and innovation thriving in our digital lives.