3 ms·

While I understand and agree with the rule, it's funny that the banned hard-walled article goes into more depth than the Reuters article that's allowed.

dang 5y ago
That's what happens when good content is hardwalled. I wouldn't say the Reuters article is allowed, exactly. At present it contains no information beyond the title, so I've downweighted it. That doesn't mean we're about to ban Reuters.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  This version seems to have a bit more information: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-china-idCAKBN2IM1HH https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-china-idCAKBN2IM1HH > The five-year agreement was made when Cook made visits to China in 2016 to quash a host of regulatory action against the company, the report said, citing interviews and internal Apple documents. > Cook lobbied Chinese officials, who believed the company was not contributing enough to the local economy, and signed the agreement with a Chinese government agency, making concessions to Beijing and winning key legal exemptions, the report added. > Some of Apple’s investment in China would go toward building new retail stores, research and development centers and renewable energy projects, the report said, citing the agreement.... > As part of the agreement, Apple promised to use more components from Chinese suppliers in its devices, sign deals with Chinese software firms, collaborate on technology with Chinese universities and directly invest in Chinese tech companies, the Information report said. It looks like it was published two minutes after the one in the OP. I've noticed Reuters tends to rush stuff out then issue a new articles when they have new information to report. Sometimes it's just a report that some other outlet reported something. I think they do this because they're tailoring their content to financial terminal subscribers, who'd benefit from a bare bones headline that comes a few minutes early, so they can trade on the news.

dang 5y ago

That's what happens when good content is hardwalled. I wouldn't say the Reuters article is allowed, exactly. At present it contains no information beyond the title, so I've downweighted it. That doesn't mean we're about to ban Reuters.

tablespoon 5y ago
This version seems to have a bit more information: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-china-idCAKBN2IM1HH https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-china-idCAKBN2IM1HH > The five-year agreement was made when Cook made visits to China in 2016 to quash a host of regulatory action against the company, the report said, citing interviews and internal Apple documents. > Cook lobbied Chinese officials, who believed the company was not contributing enough to the local economy, and signed the agreement with a Chinese government agency, making concessions to Beijing and winning key legal exemptions, the report added. > Some of Apple’s investment in China would go toward building new retail stores, research and development centers and renewable energy projects, the report said, citing the agreement.... > As part of the agreement, Apple promised to use more components from Chinese suppliers in its devices, sign deals with Chinese software firms, collaborate on technology with Chinese universities and directly invest in Chinese tech companies, the Information report said. It looks like it was published two minutes after the one in the OP. I've noticed Reuters tends to rush stuff out then issue a new articles when they have new information to report. Sometimes it's just a report that some other outlet reported something. I think they do this because they're tailoring their content to financial terminal subscribers, who'd benefit from a bare bones headline that comes a few minutes early, so they can trade on the news.