3 ms·

“Straight up lie”? You have absolutely no grounds to make that claim. So, I hope you get paid to come here to HN and post stuff like that - because if you’re

“Straight up lie”? You have absolutely no grounds to make that claim. So, I hope you get paid to come here to HN and post stuff like that - because if you’re not, it doesn’t really reflect well on you… The burden of proof is on you: where’s the public denial by Apple? However, I did find this: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/business/media/jon-stewart-the-problem-ends.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/business/media/jon-stewar...

t888 3y ago
[flagged]
- verst 3y ago
  I don't find this article newsworthy, but your very reaction/response makes me pay much closer attention to it! Lina Khan is the FTC chairperson. The FTC regulates monopolies, so it can be said Lina Khan regulates monopolies. [Assumption by the FTC] Apple is a monopoly. Based on this assumption we can say that Lina Khan regulates Apple (and others). Apple did not want to produce an episode of a show which might mention Apple (or companies like it) in a negative way. This would likely have happened because the FTC has increasingly focused on tech monopolies. Is the headline really that wrong? The fact that we publicly learned that Apple didn't want to produce an episode featuring the FTC chairperson is what is referred to as censorship here. Of course that is simply editorial control by the producers - but it does feel like a protective move, retaliation or something in between. I don't find the story interesting (no company would produce content which could make the company itself look bad), but I do not believe it to be wrong as you allege.
  - t888 3y ago
    Firstly, while your characterization of Khan is accurate, it’s a huge stretch to call her Apple’s “own” regulator, so yes, I’d say that’s clearly a misrepresentation intended to make what Apple did seem worse than it is - I.e. a lie. But also, as you point out - it was a normal editorial decision, not censorship. I personally thing it was unwise - I think it would have been better for them to produce the show. However, we aren’t talking about your interpretation of the article. We basically agree on that. My comment was that the headline is a lie. I think that’s accurate. 1. Apple didn’t censor anything. 2. Apple didn’t get ‘caught’ doing anything. 3. Khan isn’t Apple’s own regulator. Even if we agree to disagree on #3. The headline writer knew both 1 and 2 because they read the article. Therefore they lied.
- DrNosferatu 3y ago
  Thanks t888 for presenting us with this veritable Brazilian barbecue [rodízio] of fallacies: - Straw Man; - False Dilemma; - Begging the Question; - Oversimplification; - Ad Hominem;
  - DrNosferatu 3y ago
    Dear user t888, I looked into your previous posts and found that you display an uncanny proclivity to quarrel here on HN in defense of Apple’s corporate image. - Would you care to comment?
    - t888 3y ago
      Your characterization is inaccurate. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a single positive thing I’ve said about Apple, unless you are referring to where I implied that Xcode has improved. I don’t like dishonest headlines and vague smears, which I see too much of in a site that is meant to be known for curious discussion. Apple isn’t the only victim - I just happen to be noticing it today.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

t888 3y ago

[flagged]

verst 3y ago
I don't find this article newsworthy, but your very reaction/response makes me pay much closer attention to it! Lina Khan is the FTC chairperson. The FTC regulates monopolies, so it can be said Lina Khan regulates monopolies. [Assumption by the FTC] Apple is a monopoly. Based on this assumption we can say that Lina Khan regulates Apple (and others). Apple did not want to produce an episode of a show which might mention Apple (or companies like it) in a negative way. This would likely have happened because the FTC has increasingly focused on tech monopolies. Is the headline really that wrong? The fact that we publicly learned that Apple didn't want to produce an episode featuring the FTC chairperson is what is referred to as censorship here. Of course that is simply editorial control by the producers - but it does feel like a protective move, retaliation or something in between. I don't find the story interesting (no company would produce content which could make the company itself look bad), but I do not believe it to be wrong as you allege.
- t888 3y ago
  Firstly, while your characterization of Khan is accurate, it’s a huge stretch to call her Apple’s “own” regulator, so yes, I’d say that’s clearly a misrepresentation intended to make what Apple did seem worse than it is - I.e. a lie. But also, as you point out - it was a normal editorial decision, not censorship. I personally thing it was unwise - I think it would have been better for them to produce the show. However, we aren’t talking about your interpretation of the article. We basically agree on that. My comment was that the headline is a lie. I think that’s accurate. 1. Apple didn’t censor anything. 2. Apple didn’t get ‘caught’ doing anything. 3. Khan isn’t Apple’s own regulator. Even if we agree to disagree on #3. The headline writer knew both 1 and 2 because they read the article. Therefore they lied.
DrNosferatu 3y ago
Thanks t888 for presenting us with this veritable Brazilian barbecue [rodízio] of fallacies: - Straw Man; - False Dilemma; - Begging the Question; - Oversimplification; - Ad Hominem;
- DrNosferatu 3y ago
  Dear user t888, I looked into your previous posts and found that you display an uncanny proclivity to quarrel here on HN in defense of Apple’s corporate image. - Would you care to comment?
  - t888 3y ago
    Your characterization is inaccurate. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a single positive thing I’ve said about Apple, unless you are referring to where I implied that Xcode has improved. I don’t like dishonest headlines and vague smears, which I see too much of in a site that is meant to be known for curious discussion. Apple isn’t the only victim - I just happen to be noticing it today.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]