6 ms·
What company hasn't reminded their employees not to comment on ongoing litigation in public? This entire story seems so forced, with outlets seemingly pretendin
by abracadaniel 3y ago
What company hasn't reminded their employees not to comment on ongoing litigation in public? This entire story seems so forced, with outlets seemingly pretending that they don't know their headlines are implying ionizing radiation.
- biogene 3y agoYep. Regardless of whether it is positive or negative, you don't want your general employees commenting on the safety of the companies products. On such sensitive topics, you want to leave the floor open to SMEs and recognized industry experts.
- flangola7 3y agoThe problem is that opens the door for the company to sweep issues under the rug. This is a pattern history has repeated time and time again
- biogene 3y agoHow does that change the decision of not letting the company's accountant comment on safety?
- flangola7 3y agoWhat do you think? Give it a couple of your best effort theories.
- biogene 3y agoWhy would I give a theory when I don't even agree with your position. That is a bizarre request. I don't quite understand what point you're making except calling it a problem.
- flangola7 3y agoI find that answering a question with a question often results in better understanding and insightfulness by the pupil than just spoon-feeding it to them. Every good parent and professor will be familiar with this technique.
- westmeal 3y agoLook, this time its bullshit. But let's say the company in this case is something like DuPont. Let's say the recognized industry experts are paid to shut up and write whitepapers backing up the company. This has happened plenty of times over the course of history and employees talking about unethical or even downright dangerous behavior should at least be heard I think... even if they don't understand what non-ionizing radiation is.
- runlevel1 3y agoIt's also a shamefully clickbait title. When the general public sees "radiation" they think ionizing radiation, and Bloomberg damn well knows it.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoclickbait titles are kind of bloomberg's schtick, i'd observe.
- relativ575 3y agoThe public know the difference? I bet many people on HN don't, let alone the general consumers. Would you rather them ignore it than doing further research? There is such as a weird bias for Apple on HN, unlike any other tech companies.
- mwint 3y agoMany people on HN are in a good position to understand just how good Apple products are, so they invest in them (both by buying products and building workflows on them, and by investing in shares). Once invested, bullshit accusations against the company harm you individually, because the company has to spend time and money proving that some dude in France set up a meter wrong. Those engineering resources could have gone into making the product better.
- runlevel1 3y agoThe title would be less misleading if they simply changed s/radiation/electromagnetic radiation/. They don't just do this with Apple. News outlets have been sensationalizing dubious research into the link between mobile phone RF exposure and a variety of maladies for decades now.
- relativ575 3y agoHow is it forced? The article is very short and informative. There isn't a single personal opinion in there.
- aperson_hello 3y agoBecause it doesn't give any perspective on any of the actions that Apple is taking. Facts alone don't make an informative article. This one's less egregious than many, but it suffers the same pervasive issue as most other articles do: It doesn't look at the big picture or the why behind anything and just reports in a technically factual, but widely misleading fashion