3 ms·

https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-multimillion-iphone-nude-photos-privacy-settlement-pegatron https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/a

https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-multimillion-iphone-nude-photos-privacy-settlement-pegatron https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-mult... > Apple paid an unknown multimillion-dollar sum to a woman after iPhone repair technicians uploaded nude photos from her phone to Facebook. The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name, and Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge. I think this will suffice. I read it and the verge seems to be legit thing to trust.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Did you even read my comment? I linked directly to the telegraph article that the Verge sources from. And you wrote that Apple paid the technicians who uploaded the woman’s media to Facebook, when that is not written anywhere. To summarize 1: you ask otterley why they would need a modicum of evidence to believe something 2: in the same comment, you post misinformation or disinformation 3: you are presented with a request for the source of the erroneous information you posted. You are also presented with a source regarding the same incident that portrays a different sequence of events. 4: you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed. 5: this is why otterley says you need a modicum of evidence
- cute_boi 5y ago
  Ok, first of all you said its a misinformation and disinformation and I provided the verge link where they says exactly "Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge." And now you are saying "you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed." Yes it links back but it also mentions they have confirmed it with apple. You are intentionally trying to summarize in a way that favors you tbh . Also i trust verge over some random people on internet trying to say its misinformation or disinformation. And regarding the first one I already mentioned the fedex thing.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    1. You claimed "Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook." 2. You are asked to substantiate above claim. 3. You could not (your verge link says no such thing), so you simply chose not to address the misinformation or disinformation that you posted. A simple "I was incorrect about my recollection of this event" would have sufficed.
    - cute_boi 5y ago
      I am trying to be honest. 1. "Apple paid millions after iPhone repair techs posted a customer’s nude photos to Facebook" 2. "The incident became public because Pegatron reimbursed Apple for the settlement, then sued its own insurance provider for refusing to cover the payment." 3. " The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name" 4. Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge. Doesn't this imply Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook. Ok, by 4 it is confirmed that the source (Telegraph) you have mentioned is correct right? Yes I am holding a premise that the verge is legit source. By 1 they paid millions and their tech posted a customer's nude photo on facebook. I said they hided the statement because of 2. Where did I go wrong. I love to be corrected tho.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        >Where did I go wrong. You continue to keep claiming Apple paid millions to the technicians who uploaded someone's nude photos to Facebook. Both the Telegraph and Verge articles state Apple paid millions to the woman whose photos were uploaded to Facebook.
        cute_boi 5y ago
        Thanks. I am sorry and I take my words back but this is what I wanted to say: Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions when their own tech posted a customer's nude on Facebook And due to two 'when' I corrected second 'when' to 'to'. And I probably messed it up after that :). The statement you mentioned on last line is what I wanted to say.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Did you even read my comment? I linked directly to the telegraph article that the Verge sources from. And you wrote that Apple paid the technicians who uploaded the woman’s media to Facebook, when that is not written anywhere. To summarize 1: you ask otterley why they would need a modicum of evidence to believe something 2: in the same comment, you post misinformation or disinformation 3: you are presented with a request for the source of the erroneous information you posted. You are also presented with a source regarding the same incident that portrays a different sequence of events. 4: you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed. 5: this is why otterley says you need a modicum of evidence

cute_boi 5y ago
Ok, first of all you said its a misinformation and disinformation and I provided the verge link where they says exactly "Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge." And now you are saying "you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed." Yes it links back but it also mentions they have confirmed it with apple. You are intentionally trying to summarize in a way that favors you tbh . Also i trust verge over some random people on internet trying to say its misinformation or disinformation. And regarding the first one I already mentioned the fedex thing.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  1. You claimed "Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook." 2. You are asked to substantiate above claim. 3. You could not (your verge link says no such thing), so you simply chose not to address the misinformation or disinformation that you posted. A simple "I was incorrect about my recollection of this event" would have sufficed.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    I am trying to be honest. 1. "Apple paid millions after iPhone repair techs posted a customer’s nude photos to Facebook" 2. "The incident became public because Pegatron reimbursed Apple for the settlement, then sued its own insurance provider for refusing to cover the payment." 3. " The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name" 4. Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge. Doesn't this imply Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook. Ok, by 4 it is confirmed that the source (Telegraph) you have mentioned is correct right? Yes I am holding a premise that the verge is legit source. By 1 they paid millions and their tech posted a customer's nude photo on facebook. I said they hided the statement because of 2. Where did I go wrong. I love to be corrected tho.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      >Where did I go wrong. You continue to keep claiming Apple paid millions to the technicians who uploaded someone's nude photos to Facebook. Both the Telegraph and Verge articles state Apple paid millions to the woman whose photos were uploaded to Facebook.
      - cute_boi 5y ago
        Thanks. I am sorry and I take my words back but this is what I wanted to say: Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions when their own tech posted a customer's nude on Facebook And due to two 'when' I corrected second 'when' to 'to'. And I probably messed it up after that :). The statement you mentioned on last line is what I wanted to say.