> most responsible outlets don’t speculate on motives until there’s some evidence of a connection
That is simply not true, every single news outlet without fail speculates, uncritically quotes a speculator, or leaves out warranted critical speculation at their own discretion. Pick a news site that you think doesn’t do this and I will happily find an example from their front page.
Reporters tend to be very careful about this in the context of things like deaths, embarrassing scandals, etc. where they might be sued. If you note, the kind of stories you’re referring to tend to be referencing what someone else said—a source in law enforcement, neighbors, friends, etc.—because that makes it clear that there are not the opinion of the news organization itself.
I agree with everything you said, but the news organization's decision to include or not include a quote or speculation from someone is fundamentally a narrative choice. And every news organization makes those choices at their own discretion and it can result in uncritical reporting.
Pick a few frontpage stories from any news site you like, then see how its covered one a new source you don't like/leans the opposite way politically (short of the crazy outlets) and see how the same stories are reported. You'll see different quotes, different speculation, different choices of what to include or not include. Hell even the choice of what is covered on the frontpage will obviously vary if you just compare them. Saying that what a news outlet is reporting is "not the opinion of the news organization itself" may be technically correct in a legal sense, but that's worst kind of correct.
Yes, coverage follows trends for most news organizations but that’s pretty far off of my original point which was that the reason the responsible news organizations weren’t covering this as an anti-Jewish hate crime was just there was no evidence supporting that theory. Now that details have started to come out, we have a good example of why serious journalists have that policy.
Technical point here but opinions are not illegal to have.
Besides that your point is missing the fact that you are dealing with outside services that provide a contract for their usage (GPS, GSM). You should be free to program your own devices but if you use an external service, then yes they can specify how you use their service. Those are contractual obligations. Cars on the road have clear safety risks and those are legal obligations. None of those obligations should govern what you do with your device until your device interacts with other people and/or services.
GPS doesn't come with a contract. It's a purely receive only system.
It wouldn't be fit for purpose (letting soldiers know precisely where they are on the globe) if it required transmission of any type from the user. That would turn it into a beacon an adversary could leverage.
The difference is apple doesn’t let you modify your device to use other services. Their contractual obligation goes beyond the service itself. That’s why EPIC won this case.
Feels a lot more like the reporter already had a problem with Meta and chose the examples most favorable to their anti-Meta slant to report in the article. Of course on HN we're all just to happy to eat it up as it aligns neatly with our little bubble. Here's some still publically available posts from Sex Talk Arabic who they directly quote in the article complaining about these shadow bans. It makes it a lot harder to trust the reporting here when these examples were so easy to find.
> Fatma Ibrahim, the director of the Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based platform which offers Arabic-language content on sexual and reproductive health, said that the organisation had received a message almost every week from Meta over the past year saying that its page “didn’t follow the rules” and would not be suggested to other people, based on posts related to sexuality and sexual health.
If you're getting a warning every week for a year, I would like to see the other 51 non cherry-picked examples that they didn't give to the guardian. Based on a quick look at some of their posts that are still publically available, I think Meta is completely justified in restricting visibility of some of these posts.
Yes there are. It is well documented in other countries such as Venezuela or Argentina and some vendors even prefer cryptocurrency because compared to their national currency it is more stable. In addition, there are significant remitance and cross-border payments done in crypto where banking or FX controls make dollars hard to access in countries like Venezuela and certain regions in Africa.
Day-to-day transactions at the street level may not be dominated by crypto or even a majority, but it is a growing nontrivial minority in a lot of places especially emerging markets.
> countries like Venezuela and certain regions in Africa
So approximately none of the world's money and only in the most desperate situations.
I'm all in favor of some kind of vehicle like this, a currency supplemental system that is decentralized and safe. What I don't give a shit about and what is obviously useless are the "usecases" people keep coming up with beyond currency. The absolute #1 best usecase is ticket NFTs - proving you did something on the network to the outside world. As soon as you need to prove to the network something you did on the outside world - 99.99% of the ideas people have - you are back to uselessland.
On the contrary, it is perfectly on point, the poster in fact admits further down below that it was a stupid comment. It is so confused that I can't make heads or tails of it but after some more back-and-forth (which if you had read the thread you would have known, rather than put in your uselesswords here) it became more clear: they really don't understand the comment did not make any sense.
Yea but he’s not exactly going around randomly punching people in the face is he? Lot of moral grandstanding in this thread.
He’s a human being and he’s not perfect but some of these comments calling him a psychopath or sycophant are going way too far. My psychoanalysis of everyone psychoanalyzing Mr Beast would be to turn the screen off and get some fresh air
Actions have a statistical inevitability to them. I don't think it's much different than going out and randomly punching people in the face.
When you have a lot of money and influence, and you have a choice between two policies: policy A which will statistically harm 1,000 people, and policy B which will statistically harm 1,500 people, it is no different, to me, than going around randomly punching 500 people you never had to.
For some reason people give these choices a pass. I don't.
I might give Mr. Beast a bit of a pass because there might be some ignorance involved. But for most people making these decisions, that live within large corporations, I don't, because they know better, they just don't care.
"In September 2024, Donaldson was one of the subjects of a class action lawsuit that alleged widespread mistreatment, sexual harassment, and unpaid expenses and wages on his ongoing reality television series."
That is simply not true, every single news outlet without fail speculates, uncritically quotes a speculator, or leaves out warranted critical speculation at their own discretion. Pick a news site that you think doesn’t do this and I will happily find an example from their front page.