4 ms·

They mislinked because the page they sourced for the statement has a weird set up where the url changes based on your scroll position on the page (scroll down a

by csydas 9y ago

They mislinked because the page they sourced for the statement has a weird set up where the url changes based on your scroll position on the page (scroll down and you will get this link [1]). It's an honest mistake, not clickbait. [1] - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-apple/fcc-says-apple-should-activate-iphones-fm-radio-chip-but-newer-phones-dont-have-idUSKCN1C328C?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtechnologyNews+%28Reuters+Technology+News%29 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-apple/fcc-says-app...

metaphor 9y ago
Or they could have, I don't know, linked to the actual statement[1] like the converse of clickbait garbage would have. [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.p...
- csydas 9y ago
  I do agree, and this discussion is a bit meta of the actual article, but I find that if mistakenly mislinking a source is all it takes to be labeled clickbait, then the definition of clickbait is too broad to be of any use. The article does discuss the inconsistency between the FCC's statement and the reality of the builds pretty clearly with other sources as well commenting on the same thing. I'm not quite sure what about the article is clickbait or how it's being defined here. It would have been great to have the original statement, yes, and it was lazy or an oversight (both?) to not include it, but I wouldn't really call it clickbait. It's a coy title, for sure, but the FCC statement is indeed factually incorrect in its assertion that Apple has FM chips in their iPhone that can be activated.
  - cdubzzz 9y ago
    Further to that, I would argue that clickbait is really based on the title of an article. “Apple would like to remind the FCC that it can’t activate imaginary FM radios that iPhones don’t have” is pretty damn informative as far as titles go. It’s editorialized, sure, but clickbait would be “You’ll never guess which major phone brand the FCC is trying to bully!!”

by csydas 9y ago

metaphor 9y ago

Or they could have, I don't know, linked to the actual statement[1] like the converse of clickbait garbage would have. [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.p...

csydas 9y ago
I do agree, and this discussion is a bit meta of the actual article, but I find that if mistakenly mislinking a source is all it takes to be labeled clickbait, then the definition of clickbait is too broad to be of any use. The article does discuss the inconsistency between the FCC's statement and the reality of the builds pretty clearly with other sources as well commenting on the same thing. I'm not quite sure what about the article is clickbait or how it's being defined here. It would have been great to have the original statement, yes, and it was lazy or an oversight (both?) to not include it, but I wouldn't really call it clickbait. It's a coy title, for sure, but the FCC statement is indeed factually incorrect in its assertion that Apple has FM chips in their iPhone that can be activated.
- cdubzzz 9y ago
  Further to that, I would argue that clickbait is really based on the title of an article. “Apple would like to remind the FCC that it can’t activate imaginary FM radios that iPhones don’t have” is pretty damn informative as far as titles go. It’s editorialized, sure, but clickbait would be “You’ll never guess which major phone brand the FCC is trying to bully!!”