Apple has released a scaremongering, self-serving warning aimed at the Australian government, claiming that Australians will be overrun by a parade of digital horribles if Australia follows the European Union’s lead and regulates Apple’s “walled garden.” The EU’s Digital Markets Act is a big,...
I don’t even need to read the article to know that they didn’t actually say that.
But they did, just with different words.
So they didn’t…
The title should quote what they actually said rather than putting their own bias on it. You’d call them out for twisting your words like that. Hold yourself to the same standards.
Except the title isn’t a quote, it’s a paraphrase - hence why there are no quotation marks.
You could say “Midnitte to OpinionHaver: their opinion is stupid and wrong”, even if the actual statement was, “Midnitte said OpinionHaver was wrong and making incorrect judgments about language”.
Apple’s statement is probably much longer than would fit into a sensible title bar…
As a reader, you can’t rely on headlines to be a replacement for reading the article. Headlines tend to be shorter than the corresponding article and require a level of summarization to be effective.
But I’m not criticizing them for failing to summarize the entire article in the headline. I’m criticizing them for being biased - and for clearly showing that bias in how they chose to write the headline. This isn’t neutral reporting on what’s happening.
It’s the EFF. They’re not neutral. They advocate for stuff - that’s their whole thing.
Recognizing bias is indeed important. But every source has some bias. Refusing to engage with biased sources will rule out everything. If you think it doesn’t rule out something, you’ve found your own bias! Good, it’s powerful to know your own bias.
Neutrality is in fact its own bias. Not everything need or should be neutral.
So, check the source. Eff? OK you know or can readily discover they are going to have a bias toward protecting individuals online. Read the piece knowing that and you can get valuable information from it.
If you like, you can reference the information with attribution, Eg “the Eff says…” to avoid taking on their own bias as your own.
Well, I did read it. Obviously Apple didn’t use those exact words, but the argument is the same: users are incapable of making safe decisions and need to be protected from themselves.