4 ms·

This is no different than pretty much any company. Do you think Apple lets reporters wander throughout their campus looking for new hardware, and allow them to

This is no different than pretty much any company. Do you think Apple lets reporters wander throughout their campus looking for new hardware, and allow them to ask engineers information about what they are working on? No. Apple does not let them wander around, and they advise all of their employees to never talk to press.

lelandfe 1y ago
Hey you’re on a roll, don’t stop there. How does Apple respond to FOIA requests? They’re not subject to FOIA you say? Perhaps there’s a difference to the organizations after all.
exe34 1y ago
Apple is a private company that answers to shareholders. The DoD is a government department that used to answer to the people.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Answering to the people doesn't mean that every secret must be made immediately public.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    This is about not wanting the journalists to even ask for information from e.g. generals. No-one is saying that they want immediate disclosure of all secrets - I'm concerned that you're building a strawman.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        I completely disagree. Their job is to uncover truths that may not be immediately obvious and they may not even know the classification status of sensitive information before asking about it. The military should instead say something like "that information is classified". Why would the public want journalists to not even be able to ask the questions, never mind actually get the information?
        exe34 1y ago
        > Why would the public want journalists to not even be able to ask the questions, never mind actually get the information? because "the public" in this case are cult members that agree with whatever the eternal leader wants.
      - wtfwhateven 1y ago
        >Journalists asking for classified and sensitive information are acting in bad faifth. How? >They know that these people are not allowed to give away the information, Not true, nor is everything is classified. It appears you've not actually read the article, or what the new restrictions even asked for. You're acting as if journalists were allowed to go rummaging in office drawers and journalists dislike being told they can't do that anymore.
      - radley 1y ago
        Or they could be trying to uncover malicious acts hidden behind classification. You may be too young or too old to understand, but historically it goes both ways.
  - troupo 1y ago
    You have classified information for that reason. It's not the same as requiring journalists you literally let into public press conferences to shut up and spread propaganda unquestioningly
  - baubino 1y ago
    No one is suggesting that secrets be made public. The gov can and does classify info that must be kept secret.
  - radley 1y ago
    But it does require answers. Answers are a response to questions, otherwise they're just statements.
  - kstenerud 1y ago
    Who is allowed to decide which secrets should or should not be made public? If your answer is "the government", then every cover up will never be revealed, and the government will answer to no one. If your answer is "journalists", then you have the status-quo in any functioning democracy. And when it actually moves into sedition territory, that's what an independent court system is for. Unfortunately, once things devolve into a two-party system, it becomes ever increasingly difficult to keep the various branches independent.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - intended 1y ago
    This is moving the goal posts from your original position. Spend the time to refocus - if your position was erroneous, it was erroneous. Correct it, figure out what that means, then proceed. Moving on to a new version is to waste your own intelligence in reactionary sentence creation.
- tintor 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - kanbara 1y ago
    no, actually that requires congressional approval, and the government is currently shut down, mostly as a way to defer the release of the Epstein files. nice try, though.
    - parineum 1y ago
      > mostly as a way to defer the release of the Epstein file How many disappointments will it take for people to realize there isn't any more there there than what's already been found? Or are the Epstein files are going to be what the minority party rambles about from now on instead of having a coherent message?
      - j4coh 1y ago
        Should be quite simple to release them and move on then, that will be great.
        parineum 1y ago
        [flagged]
        usrusr 1y ago
        But then they can't release them at a convenient time to distract from something much bigger. Which I'm afraid they will, eventually.
      - matwood 1y ago
        > there isn't any more there there than what's already been found? I thought this until seeing Trump look completely guilty every time it comes up, and the GOP leadership mobilizing to stop the release of the files.
        1y ago
- oldpersonintx2 1y ago
  [dead]
- JuniperMesos 1y ago
  I don't think the US DoD meaningfully answered to me (a US citizen) by its previous policy of letting a bunch of reporters from some mainstream news outlets have offices inside the Pentagon under one set of rules, and I don't think the US DoD meaningfully answers to me by its current policy of putting more rules on those reporters that they don't like and are willing to resign over. I have a healthy amount of mistrust for both the US military and mainstream US journalism operations, and I don't assume that the military-related stories these reporters covered previously were the ones that were actually important for me to know.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    No one resigned.
bigyabai 1y ago
For Apple that makes sense as there are financial damages. Can/should the US be able to sue for defamation if the claims aren't libel?
f33d5173 1y ago
Apple doesn't demand ideological conformity from news oganizations before letting their reporters in, no.
- troupo 1y ago
  Well, it kinda does. Reporters Apple doesn't like get cut off from early access, interviews etc. However, Apple is a private company and can do whatever it pleases, however shitty that behavior is.
esseph 1y ago
Apple doesn't own a monopoly on violence. Your argument doesn't carry any weight.
lm28469 1y ago
Governments are companies now? The capitalism brain rot is in its final stages
wtfwhateven 1y ago
What possible relevance does what companies do have? I can't believe you're arguing this in good faith.
j4coh 1y ago
If Apple had the ability to deploy military forces on behalf of my democratically elected government I'd actually be pretty concerned with them locking out the press too.
- RobotToaster 1y ago
  We've already seen Musk boasting about the CIA organising a coup for him, so it wouldn't surprise me https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/29/we-will-coup-whoever-we-want-elon-musk-and-the-overthrow-of-democracy-in-bolivia/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/29/we-will-coup-whoever...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > We've already seen Musk boasting about the CIA organising a coup for him I had a friend go deep into addiction. I think there was a period when every headline was his doing, too.
virtue3 1y ago
Apple doesn't require you to pay a significant portion of you paycheck to them either.
- uncletammy 1y ago
  Unless you're a developer
blitzar 1y ago
You are right, Apple should have its own nukes and bombers.
croes 1y ago
Apple is neither a state nor a democracy. The journalists and the government are there to aserve the same boss: the people. Now one of the people's employees sabotages the work the other employee.

lelandfe 1y ago

Hey you’re on a roll, don’t stop there. How does Apple respond to FOIA requests? They’re not subject to FOIA you say? Perhaps there’s a difference to the organizations after all.

exe34 1y ago

Apple is a private company that answers to shareholders. The DoD is a government department that used to answer to the people.

charcircuit 1y ago
Answering to the people doesn't mean that every secret must be made immediately public.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  This is about not wanting the journalists to even ask for information from e.g. generals. No-one is saying that they want immediate disclosure of all secrets - I'm concerned that you're building a strawman.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      I completely disagree. Their job is to uncover truths that may not be immediately obvious and they may not even know the classification status of sensitive information before asking about it. The military should instead say something like "that information is classified". Why would the public want journalists to not even be able to ask the questions, never mind actually get the information?
      - exe34 1y ago
        > Why would the public want journalists to not even be able to ask the questions, never mind actually get the information? because "the public" in this case are cult members that agree with whatever the eternal leader wants.
    - wtfwhateven 1y ago
      >Journalists asking for classified and sensitive information are acting in bad faifth. How? >They know that these people are not allowed to give away the information, Not true, nor is everything is classified. It appears you've not actually read the article, or what the new restrictions even asked for. You're acting as if journalists were allowed to go rummaging in office drawers and journalists dislike being told they can't do that anymore.
    - radley 1y ago
      Or they could be trying to uncover malicious acts hidden behind classification. You may be too young or too old to understand, but historically it goes both ways.
- troupo 1y ago
  You have classified information for that reason. It's not the same as requiring journalists you literally let into public press conferences to shut up and spread propaganda unquestioningly
- baubino 1y ago
  No one is suggesting that secrets be made public. The gov can and does classify info that must be kept secret.
- radley 1y ago
  But it does require answers. Answers are a response to questions, otherwise they're just statements.
- kstenerud 1y ago
  Who is allowed to decide which secrets should or should not be made public? If your answer is "the government", then every cover up will never be revealed, and the government will answer to no one. If your answer is "journalists", then you have the status-quo in any functioning democracy. And when it actually moves into sedition territory, that's what an independent court system is for. Unfortunately, once things devolve into a two-party system, it becomes ever increasingly difficult to keep the various branches independent.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- intended 1y ago
  This is moving the goal posts from your original position. Spend the time to refocus - if your position was erroneous, it was erroneous. Correct it, figure out what that means, then proceed. Moving on to a new version is to waste your own intelligence in reactionary sentence creation.
tintor 1y ago
[flagged]
- kanbara 1y ago
  no, actually that requires congressional approval, and the government is currently shut down, mostly as a way to defer the release of the Epstein files. nice try, though.
  - parineum 1y ago
    > mostly as a way to defer the release of the Epstein file How many disappointments will it take for people to realize there isn't any more there there than what's already been found? Or are the Epstein files are going to be what the minority party rambles about from now on instead of having a coherent message?
    - j4coh 1y ago
      Should be quite simple to release them and move on then, that will be great.
      - parineum 1y ago
        [flagged]
      - usrusr 1y ago
        But then they can't release them at a convenient time to distract from something much bigger. Which I'm afraid they will, eventually.
    - matwood 1y ago
      > there isn't any more there there than what's already been found? I thought this until seeing Trump look completely guilty every time it comes up, and the GOP leadership mobilizing to stop the release of the files.
      - 1y ago
oldpersonintx2 1y ago
[dead]
JuniperMesos 1y ago
I don't think the US DoD meaningfully answered to me (a US citizen) by its previous policy of letting a bunch of reporters from some mainstream news outlets have offices inside the Pentagon under one set of rules, and I don't think the US DoD meaningfully answers to me by its current policy of putting more rules on those reporters that they don't like and are willing to resign over. I have a healthy amount of mistrust for both the US military and mainstream US journalism operations, and I don't assume that the military-related stories these reporters covered previously were the ones that were actually important for me to know.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  No one resigned.

bigyabai 1y ago

For Apple that makes sense as there are financial damages. Can/should the US be able to sue for defamation if the claims aren't libel?

f33d5173 1y ago

Apple doesn't demand ideological conformity from news oganizations before letting their reporters in, no.

troupo 1y ago
Well, it kinda does. Reporters Apple doesn't like get cut off from early access, interviews etc. However, Apple is a private company and can do whatever it pleases, however shitty that behavior is.

esseph 1y ago

Apple doesn't own a monopoly on violence. Your argument doesn't carry any weight.

lm28469 1y ago

Governments are companies now? The capitalism brain rot is in its final stages

wtfwhateven 1y ago

What possible relevance does what companies do have? I can't believe you're arguing this in good faith.

j4coh 1y ago

If Apple had the ability to deploy military forces on behalf of my democratically elected government I'd actually be pretty concerned with them locking out the press too.

RobotToaster 1y ago
We've already seen Musk boasting about the CIA organising a coup for him, so it wouldn't surprise me https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/29/we-will-coup-whoever-we-want-elon-musk-and-the-overthrow-of-democracy-in-bolivia/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/29/we-will-coup-whoever...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > We've already seen Musk boasting about the CIA organising a coup for him I had a friend go deep into addiction. I think there was a period when every headline was his doing, too.

virtue3 1y ago

Apple doesn't require you to pay a significant portion of you paycheck to them either.

uncletammy 1y ago
Unless you're a developer

blitzar 1y ago

You are right, Apple should have its own nukes and bombers.

croes 1y ago

Apple is neither a state nor a democracy. The journalists and the government are there to aserve the same boss: the people. Now one of the people's employees sabotages the work the other employee.