Disclaimer: please don't take my comments personally, I'm only using your post as an example, since it's exactly like hundreds or thousands of others, before it, in the forum here over the last few years.
That said, "why is _______ (fill in the blank, with the source being attacked or discredited) even reported?"
This is a unique phenomenon to this and other Apple centric forums. Attack the Source, the Analyst, the Publication, and on and on. Hit them with a low blow to help continue the spirit of Apple arrogance and superiority.
In other, non Apple forums, rumors originating from various sources are a welcome discussion starter. Rarely do the members get offended, take the rumors personally and go on an attack even if they don't agree with the source.
It's what makes Apple and it's community so abrasive and disputatious.
Perhaps it's a need stemming from insecurity or a need for attention. Or a burning desire to argue or create conflict, just for the sake of it.
It's certainly interesting, that's for sure
It's not a matter of "agreeing" with the source. It's not an editorial, it's a rumor. When you start a rumor, it either turns out to be true or false, there's no real middle-ground as with an opinion.
So it's really easy to attribute some kind of reliability score to each source, basically just the proportion of rumors they have gotten right. I have the opinion that rumor sources that have less than say, 25% reliability shouldn't be reported, because with such a low accuracy it's very unlikely that they aren't just making stuff up just to get page views, and revenues.
It's not an Apple thing, it's an Internet thing. The business model of free blogs paid for by ads encourages dishonest practices that I don't want to encourage. Someone could do the same about another topic, say, celebs, and just start a rumor like "We heard X celeb is now dating Y celeb" that they completely made up just to generate ad impressions. It would be just as bad and I would, just like here, discourage the propagation of such bull.
I'm not sure exactly what's the point you're trying to make with your superiority thing. How is pointing out a specific source is not reliable making me feeling superior exactly? I just want rumors to be reliable, not made up crap. I don't think all rumors should be perceived as having the same reliability, and should have to be taken with the same grain of salt like you seem to imply.
Does my desire to eliminate intentional misinformation which the only purpose is to generate additional revenues make me a bad person? Should I not react to what I consider unethical?
Last edited:
