4 ms·

I'm not sure exactly what part of it you're trying to refute since your comment is kind of all over the place, but GP comment is correct. The reason it's calle

I'm not sure exactly what part of it you're trying to refute since your comment is kind of all over the place, but GP comment is correct. The reason it's called that is literally because of the Indian government. > Apple's removal of the term "state-sponsored" from its description of threat notifications comes after it repeatedly faced pressure from the Indian government on linking such breaches to state actors, said a source with direct knowledge. https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/apple-warns-users-mercenary-spyware-attack-91-countries-including-india-et-2024-04-11/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/apple-warns...

vinay_ys 3y ago
I'm clearly refuting this – "because Modi complained" in the GPs post. And your linked article is making an unsubstantiated claim based on "source with direct knowledge". That's just not credible enough.
- mynameisvlad 3y ago
  It was not clear at all. You jumped thoughts half a dozen times throughout your comment. That’s not an unsubstantiated claim, that’s literally how you deal with sensitive contacts and information in journalism. You understand that nobody is going to speak on the record about this, right? What, exactly, do you expect in terms of substantiation?
  - vinay_ys 3y ago
    It would have made more sense if you have context on the local politics in India or followed the supreme court case on this matter. > That’s not an unsubstantiated claim, that’s literally how you deal with sensitive contacts and information in journalism. The way it works is if the writing has a byline of a credible investigative journalist. It doesn't work for an anonymous wire service article. > You understand that nobody is going to speak on the record about this, right? What, exactly, do you expect in terms of substantiation? Journalism used to have standards. If you didn't have multiple confirmations you wouldn't publish it. These days they publish anything. They have more better credibility than anonymous opinion posts on random internet forums.

vinay_ys 3y ago

I'm clearly refuting this – "because Modi complained" in the GPs post. And your linked article is making an unsubstantiated claim based on "source with direct knowledge". That's just not credible enough.

mynameisvlad 3y ago
It was not clear at all. You jumped thoughts half a dozen times throughout your comment. That’s not an unsubstantiated claim, that’s literally how you deal with sensitive contacts and information in journalism. You understand that nobody is going to speak on the record about this, right? What, exactly, do you expect in terms of substantiation?
- vinay_ys 3y ago
  It would have made more sense if you have context on the local politics in India or followed the supreme court case on this matter. > That’s not an unsubstantiated claim, that’s literally how you deal with sensitive contacts and information in journalism. The way it works is if the writing has a byline of a credible investigative journalist. It doesn't work for an anonymous wire service article. > You understand that nobody is going to speak on the record about this, right? What, exactly, do you expect in terms of substantiation? Journalism used to have standards. If you didn't have multiple confirmations you wouldn't publish it. These days they publish anything. They have more better credibility than anonymous opinion posts on random internet forums.