4 ms·

> my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less. How could a one man operation have the fact checking machinery of some big paper,

> my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less. How could a one man operation have the fact checking machinery of some big paper, eg the NYT? Of course it’s less. Keep in mind that he usually posts multiple times per weekday.

qarl2 2mo ago
No. You misunderstand my question. Again. I want to know if the human effort, per story, is the same as other publications. Does Gruber make a real fact checking effort, or does he merely trust his gut?
- chipotle_coyote 2mo ago
  The retraction post from Gruber details ways in which he tried to fact-check this, including confirming that his understanding was correct with Mr. Godier and even running a draft of the post by him to make sure he'd stated the "facts" that Godier presented him correctly. I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here. Ask Godier for a signed affidavit? Not publish this until he could get a statement from Apple to get their side of the story? (Which is to say, not publish it at all because the chances of Apple giving anyone "their side" of something like this is essentially zero.)
  - ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
    I don't know, maybe google a few things? The most obvious search terms for me, turned up the pre-existence of the legitimate astronomy app, not to mention the trademarked name collision with a horror video game. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49217212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49217212 Perhaps engage critical thinking? Apply the CRAAP Test? Seek some independent confirmation of facts, rather than just being a mouthpiece for some hysterical acquaintance? If I had a Bitcoin for every time I heard some gamer was "banned for no reason!!1" Apple could've denied the app just for clashing with the name of an existing game... a game that involved demons tossing fortune-telling cards around
  - qarl2 2mo ago
    > The retraction post from Gruber details ways in which he tried to fact-check this Yes it does. To fact check this story - he asked the source (twice) if he was lying. > I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here. He could have asked for the full text of the rejection letter, which would have revealed the name switch. For starters. Other journalists make a much stronger effort to avoid these kinds of errors.
- jgruber 2mo ago
  I make a real fact-checking effort. In this case, the developer (Godier) sent me a video of the app in action. It’s a real app. He couldn’t send me a TestFlight to run (he said) because TestFlight submissions are taking a week or longer to get approved. Obviously what I did wasn’t enough, but trust me, I try.
  - qarl2 2mo ago
    Fair enough. Did you ask him for the full rejection letter? That's the issue I raised below. I'm wondering if he forged the app name. It seems like the situation still remains a little ambiguous - and forging the name on that letter would be definitive proof. On the other hand, if you didn't ask for it - why not? It seems like the very least amount of verification you could have done. Did it simply not occur to you that a source might lie?
  - qarl2 2mo ago
    No - really - my question here is an important one. If you did not ask for the rejection letter - that would indicate that you didn't even do the most basic checking to determine the facts. And that would seriously color your statement above "Trust me, I try." I hope you answer.
  - qarl2 2mo ago
    As it's been a week now without answer from you - I'm going to have to assume you're refusing to answer. Which means it's very likely you never did ask to see the rejection letter. Which means you did not do the most basic verification of your source's claims. You try? You need to try much harder.

qarl2 2mo ago

No. You misunderstand my question. Again. I want to know if the human effort, per story, is the same as other publications. Does Gruber make a real fact checking effort, or does he merely trust his gut?

chipotle_coyote 2mo ago
The retraction post from Gruber details ways in which he tried to fact-check this, including confirming that his understanding was correct with Mr. Godier and even running a draft of the post by him to make sure he'd stated the "facts" that Godier presented him correctly. I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here. Ask Godier for a signed affidavit? Not publish this until he could get a statement from Apple to get their side of the story? (Which is to say, not publish it at all because the chances of Apple giving anyone "their side" of something like this is essentially zero.)
- ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
  I don't know, maybe google a few things? The most obvious search terms for me, turned up the pre-existence of the legitimate astronomy app, not to mention the trademarked name collision with a horror video game. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49217212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49217212 Perhaps engage critical thinking? Apply the CRAAP Test? Seek some independent confirmation of facts, rather than just being a mouthpiece for some hysterical acquaintance? If I had a Bitcoin for every time I heard some gamer was "banned for no reason!!1" Apple could've denied the app just for clashing with the name of an existing game... a game that involved demons tossing fortune-telling cards around
- qarl2 2mo ago
  > The retraction post from Gruber details ways in which he tried to fact-check this Yes it does. To fact check this story - he asked the source (twice) if he was lying. > I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here. He could have asked for the full text of the rejection letter, which would have revealed the name switch. For starters. Other journalists make a much stronger effort to avoid these kinds of errors.
jgruber 2mo ago
I make a real fact-checking effort. In this case, the developer (Godier) sent me a video of the app in action. It’s a real app. He couldn’t send me a TestFlight to run (he said) because TestFlight submissions are taking a week or longer to get approved. Obviously what I did wasn’t enough, but trust me, I try.
- qarl2 2mo ago
  Fair enough. Did you ask him for the full rejection letter? That's the issue I raised below. I'm wondering if he forged the app name. It seems like the situation still remains a little ambiguous - and forging the name on that letter would be definitive proof. On the other hand, if you didn't ask for it - why not? It seems like the very least amount of verification you could have done. Did it simply not occur to you that a source might lie?
- qarl2 2mo ago
  No - really - my question here is an important one. If you did not ask for the rejection letter - that would indicate that you didn't even do the most basic checking to determine the facts. And that would seriously color your statement above "Trust me, I try." I hope you answer.
- qarl2 2mo ago
  As it's been a week now without answer from you - I'm going to have to assume you're refusing to answer. Which means it's very likely you never did ask to see the rejection letter. Which means you did not do the most basic verification of your source's claims. You try? You need to try much harder.