Eddy Cue: Apple 'Trying to Do Some Things' to Combat the Spread of Fake News

[JeffyTheQuik]

Biased and fake are separate issues.

Biased=reporting ONLY the facts that shows "my candidate's" good points.

Fake= making up stuff.

There are many ways to lie.
Lie by making up something that gives the recipient a false idea of what happened.
Lie by leaving out details that give the recipient a false idea of what happened.

Anymore, the "news" is more of an editorial, just like back in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's, 1800's, and 1900's.

 

[Aldaris]

You do realize that Apple News is a publishing platform not a source.

The issue I have with Apple news is it being a "curator" it becomes essentially a dam letting whatever it "esteems" as news through, censoring and silencing different opinions, views, and ideas.

There was a great meme going around Facebook with two men arguing over a symbol in the road, one was claiming it was a "6" the other a "9". Who's to say who is wrong? It's much better to have more voices and understand others perspective. Censorship is never a good idea. Reminds me too much of Book burning. But hell nothing would surprise me with the current political climate, with both sides clamoring for a pound of flesh.

 

[WinstonRumfoord]

Amazing that some posters seem not to know that Apple news is simply an aggregator not a creator. Is that more conformational bias?

You don't think that a aggregator can be biased? Have you looked at Drudge Report ever? Or any other aggregator?

 

[Urban Joe]

On second thought I just deleted the Apple News app.
I don't want SJW's from the left Coast filtering my news.

 

[nt5672]

You do realize that Apple News is a publishing platform not a source.

According to Cue it seems it will also become a censorship platform. Anybody that pays attention knows that Apple is always politically correct. Which means that fake news according to Apple is anything that does not support political correctness (which is always defined by a minority of people supported by the major media outlets).

Now the major media outlets have been supplying fake news for years, and they are paying for it by losing revenue and being forced to reduce staff. If the tech companies get in on this propaganda bandwagon they will lose also.

A company either stands for freedom of speech or they don't. There is no in-between. Apple has never stood for freedom of speech, only freedom to not hurt Apple's image. If they take the next step, then it will hurt in the long term as more than half of the country (here in the US) does not support Apple's style of political correctness.

 

[burgman]

You don't think that a aggregator can be biased? Have you looked at Drudge Report ever?

You realize you get to choose the sources, can you do that on Drudge...no. So what's your point, other than not understanding or possible never using Apple News or Google News?
[doublepost=1487085975][/doublepost]

According to Cue it seems it will also become a censorship platform. Anybody that pays attention knows that Apple is always politically correct. Which means that fake news according to Apple is anything that does not support political correctness (which is always defined by a minority of people supported by the major media outlets).

Now the major media outlets have been supplying fake news for years, and they are paying for it by losing revenue and being forced to reduce staff. If the tech companies get in on this propaganda bandwagon they will lose also.

A company either stands for freedom of speech or they don't. There is no in-between. Apple has never stood for freedom of speech, only freedom to not hurt Apple's image. If they take the next step, then it will hurt in the long term as more than half of the country (here in the US) does not support Apple's style of political correctness.

But that does that half support Fox News/Drudge style of of echo chamber selective reporting? That's simply conformation bias nothing more. Anybody, regardless of political slant is an idiot if they only watch/read sources they agree with exclusively.

 

[WinstonRumfoord]

You realize you get to choose the sources, can you do that on Drudge...no. So what's your point, other than not understanding or possible never using Apple News or Google News?

Does Apple News not determine which sources you can choose from? When I stopped using Apple News, a while ago, they did not have many of my preferred sources (The atlantic, economist, a few others). It has been a long time so it might have changed.

 

[ptb42]

Biased and fake are separate issues.

Biased=reporting ONLY the facts that shows "my candidate's" good points.

Fake= making up stuff.

There are genuinely fake news stories out there. You can usually spot them by considering the source: it's from a website you never heard of. Or it may be from an obvious parody site.

During the last election, I read an interview on NPR: they were able to track down the operator of several fake news websites, and he admitted to his true motivation -- money. He was collecting thousands of dollars per month from ad networks. Some of his fake stories were getting millions of page views. And, he claimed there were other operators that were collecting even more revenue every month.

But, there's a problem with the crusade against "fake news": it easily becomes a crusade against "news I don't like", or "news that I disagree with". There's no such thing as a neutral point of view -- just selection (or exclusion) of facts or sources introduces bias. Even the "fact checkers" have their own bias. I've seen them rate the same statement differently, depending on the source. And, I've see them ignore obvious facts that contradict their rating.

As others have posted: the solution is not censorship or filtering. All it will do is further balkanize consumers into ideological sectors. Apple and Facebook are risking alienation of a large percentage of their customer base by taking sides. Instead, what we need is diversity in news: opinions, facts, and sources.

Some believe that "fake news" affected the election. I think that's simply a rationalization, because anyone that believed those articles had already made up their mind about the candidates, and all the fake article did was confirm their bias.

 

[itguy06]

The beginning of censorship....

 

[TurboPGT!]

Apple combats fake news by not allowing you to edit the sources of the Apple News widget. Yeah. Right.

 

[TheShadowKnows!]

There are genuinely fake news stories out there. You can usually spot them by considering the source: it's from a website you never heard of. Or it may be from an obvious parody site.

During the last election, I read an interview on NPR: they were able to track down the operator of several fake news websites, and he admitted to his true motivation -- money. He was collecting thousands of dollars per month from ad networks. Some of his fake stories were getting millions of page views. And, he claimed there were other operators that were collecting even more revenue every month.

But, there's a problem with the crusade against "fake news": it easily becomes a crusade against "news I don't like", or "news that I disagree with". There's no such thing as a neutral point of view -- just selection (or exclusion) of facts or sources introduces bias. Even the "fact checkers" have their own bias. I've seen them rate the same statement differently, depending on the source. And, I've see them ignore obvious facts that contradict their rating.
...

A very coherent post (hard to find) when dealing with fake news -- this topic draws out the worst, base instincts of people. It is like hanging red meat in front of a Rottweiler.

Censorship! some shout out. First Amendment Rights are being abrogated! others shout.

I say poppy cock, and ask: Is it censorship to silence those that shout Fire! where there is none?

This is the first time I agree with Cue.

 

[robeddie]

My opinion is that this is a dangerous opinion. "My gut tells me it's true, so it's true." Very good. If truth were in the gut, the world would be flat, stars would be pinholes in a black velvet curtain, and you doctor would be treating your pneumonia with leeches.

As to the Bible, more people have been killed in the name of a religion than for any other reason.

I strongly suggest to the Mods that this thread be moved to the Politics forum.

Thank you. This is one of the smartest posts I've ever read on these forums (except for anything I wrote)

 

[Nunyabinez]

The problem is that while there is a clear conceptual difference between biased news and fake news, they both lie along a continuum.

At one end there is completely made up stuff and on the other end is stuff that mildly reflects the author's personal opinions.

There is almost no way to have completely objective facts as each person is interpreting the facts through their own world view.

What is a problem is deciding where to cut off something that is in the middle of the continuum, i.e. it is mostly true, but reflects incredible bias.

 

[poloponies]

There are genuinely fake news stories out there. You can usually spot them by considering the source: it's from a website you never heard of. Or it may be from an obvious parody site.

Here's a flaw in your reasoning, most people have heard of Breitbart by now but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate news site. They don't curate news that's favorable to their agenda, they create it.

As an example, when ABC, CNN, etc. reported on Trump's perpetual claims that President Obama was not a U.S.-born citizen and was therefore not a legitimate President, that was not fake news. The idiocy of Trump's beliefs were fake, but reporting on them was not. Breitbart on the other hand, skips the pretense entirely and will bend over backwards to support such idiocy.

 

[hawkeye_a]

*sigh*

 

[Aldaris]

The question should be who do you trust to determine what is "fake" because who knows who it'll be in the future... kinda like the erroneous executive orders coming out of Washington. would you ever really want a trump-esque figure deciding what is fake? Propaganda? Because I think we've seen what happens when that happens.

 

[ptb42]

Here's a flaw in your reasoning, most people have heard of Breitbart by now but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate news site. They don't curate news that's favorable to their agenda, they create it.

You have demonstrated my point better than anything I could have written.

Every news outlet applies their own ideological bias, whether it is Breitbart, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the NY Times, or the Washington Post. (BTW, the true measure of an new outlet's ideology is what they choose to NOT publish, but that's not something you can filter).

Over time, most people choose the sources of news they trust, and discard the others. They band together with similar groups of people in person, on Facebook, Twitter, etc. They consciously and unconsciously make these choices nearly every day -- by friending and unfriending, changing the radio/TV channel, or clicking on URLs they encounter.

But, it's not turning out they way some want -- so they want to apply their own filter to your personal "news feed", because they fear too many people are making what they deem to be the "wrong" choice.

As I wrote earlier, I believe truly "fake" news isn't a problem because the only people that believe it are already pre-disposed to do so. It doesn't change anyone's mind -- all it does is get shared repeatedly among friends they think will also believe it.

But, "Fake" news is not a reason to filter out anything you don't agree with. Once you start going down the path of "I disagree", or "I think it's incorrect" means that it should be blocked from distribution, you have crossed the line into censorship of opposing views.

 

[poloponies]

You have demonstrated my point better than anything I could have written.

Every news outlet applies their own ideological bias, whether it is Breitbart, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the NY Times, or the Washington Post. (BTW, the true measure of an new outlet's ideology is what they choose to NOT publish, but that's not something you can filter).

Over time, most people choose the sources of news they trust, and discard the others. They band together with similar groups of people in person, on Facebook, Twitter, etc. They consciously and unconsciously make these choices nearly every day -- by friending and unfriending, changing the radio/TV channel, or clicking on URLs they encounter.

But, it's not turning out they way some want -- so they want to apply their own filter to your personal "news feed", because they fear too many people are making what they deem to be the "wrong" choice.

As I wrote earlier, I believe truly "fake" news isn't a problem because the only people that believe it are already pre-disposed to do so. It doesn't change anyone's mind -- all it does is get shared repeatedly among friends they think will also believe it.

But, "Fake" news is not a reason to filter out anything you don't agree with. Once you start going down the path of "I disagree", or "I think it's incorrect" means that it should be blocked from distribution, you have crossed the line into censorship of opposing views.

"Applying ideological bias" is not news.

You can apply ideological bias in choosing what to report, but not in the actual reporting. Take my Trump birther example.

Real news (on fake subject): "Donald Trump maintains that President Obama was not a natural born US citizen and cannot legally hold the position of President."

Ideological bias: "Donald Trump is bravely standing up for Americans who recognize that Obama is not a legitimate President."

or, on the flip side:

"Donald Trump will not let go of the insane notion that President Obama is somehow not a natural-born citizen."

Once you lose objectivity, it's no longer "news."

You can argue that selecting what to report on can reflect bias, and that's absolutely true, but when you talk about what's actually being reported on, there's either "news" or lies.

 

[Cineplex]

Just what I want. Apple's liberally biased, social warrior, anti-trump, pro H1B visa, fake solar powered data centers, and China's air is clean news filters.

On that subject...is Apples press release claiming of 99% solar/green powered data centers considered fake news...since it's not actually powered by green energy? Apple already spits out fake news....sooooooo.....ya.

 

[Bubble99]

Delete Apple News and go to decent sources.

bbc.co.uk
cbc.ca
abc.net.au

One can just use CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and The Guardian. These news are the best.

The ABCNews and BBC News can be not that bad.

And stay away from Yahoo! News. Lots of fake and cray news make its way to Yahoo! News. It more dumbing down news anyway.

 

[wizard]

Exactly!

The only thing fake in these discussions is the uproar over "fake news". Sadly i have to believe this is being orchrastrated to justify censorship by big corporations to promote their workd views.

To put it as simply as possibke there hasnt been enough fake news to justify any of these attempts to control the news. People need to wake up here, we are at greater risk of loosing our freedoms to big corporations rather than the government these days.

Delete Apple News and go to decent sources.

bbc.co.uk
cbc.ca
abc.net.au

[doublepost=1487105874][/doublepost]You cant be serious!! CNN and the New York Times have been the worst examples of late. Very biased and often unethical reporting.

One can just use CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and The Guardian. These news are the best.

The ABCNews and BBC News can be not that bad.

And stay away from Yahoo! News. Lots of fake and cray news make its way to Yahoo! News. It more dumbing down news anyway.

[doublepost=1487106463][/doublepost]Actually Obama trued many thingfs with resoect to weapons including using the Social Security Adminstration to go after the guns of veterans. Thankfully he was never able to realize all of his goals with respect to weapons but had set Clinton up to follow through. You need to realize that the Democrats realize that they can never implement their dictatorship as long as the American people are free to defend thenselves. Thus the policy of the democrats is to disarm America. Once that is done you can say goid bye to the Bill of Rights.

Agreed. Trouble is - 'common sense' means a totally different thing to different people. For 8 years, a work mate of mine thought it was 'common sense' that Obama was about to semd out the national guard to go house to house to confiscate weapons.

[doublepost=1487107347][/doublepost]Drudgereport is less biased than many. In any event Drudge doesnt go around claiming they will censor the news for you. This is perhaps the thing that most pisses ne off about Apple, they are shamelessly embracing censorship. They appear to be doing so to their benefit not to the benefit of the readers.

So who do you trust Drudge with its political slant or Apple with a deisre to curate the news and now to censor based on the eishy washy definition of "fake news". Frankly i will have nothing to do with Apples News service as i really believe it represents some of the most horrible things to ever come out of big business.

You don't think that a aggregator can be biased? Have you looked at Drudge Report ever? Or any other aggregator?

ee

 

[Naaaaak]

Ed Cue and Tim Cuck are full of crap.

Apple News is their political platform that spreads fake news. The majority of Apple News headlines and sources all coincidentally agree with Apple's political views, preferring to push highly biased and compromised sources like CNN and the Washington Post. Apple News is not an app or service for users, it's another corporation pushing their political viewpoint on you and calling it news.

Example of a typical Apple News feed:

What happens if you turn off everything except Fox, which is also biased and compromised, but more often than not has headlines that disagree with Apple's political beliefs:

Oh, you only get celebrity gossip when the source isn't one that Apple agrees with. How progressive of them. How informative.

Apple News is a fake news. Take that crap off your device.

 

[ptb42]

"Applying ideological bias" is not news.

Then, there is no news -- aside from the weather report.

You can apply ideological bias in choosing what to report, but not in the actual reporting. Take my Trump birther example.

Your example is an interesting case study, because it's an example of how biased reporting on both sides was used to promote a desired narrative, and how people picked their side based on which narrative they chose to believe.

If this particular news had been reported without bias, you would have learned that it has a long and interesting history, crossing ideological boundaries. It began among Democrats, although there is a dispute about whether Clinton's campaign was involved. Multiple reporters have said they were fed the rumor by Sid Blumenthal, but he denies it. How a news outlet treated this particular issue says a lot about their political ideology, and most of them didn't even cover it until they felt compelled to defend Clinton.

The case was also litigated in multiple courts with a legion of DoJ lawyers, before Obama authorized the release of his long-form birth certificate. Fuel was also thrown on this fire in 1991 before Obama ever ran for an election, when a promotional booklet by his literary agency said he was born in Kenya. The responsible person has admitted it was her error, not his.

The story would make a decent book, if someone were to make an effort to interview everyone involved and follow the long and byzantine path to the conclusion.

However, it wasn't fake news. And, while almost everyone has an opinion on it, very few know the entire history. And unless you knew the entire history, you probably didn't realize that you only got the part of the story that you wanted to hear, based on the news outlet that you chose.

Once you lose objectivity, it's no longer "news."

And that's what you are missing: unless you are reporting on immutable facts, objectivity is an illusion. I can write a story with 100% true facts, and it would still be wrong because I left out other important facts that contradict my narrative. But, it wouldn't be "fake".

When Facebook, Apple, etc. decide they need to block "fake" news, what they really mean is "censor news we don't agree with". And that should alarm everyone, even if you happen to share their views.

 

[HEK]

I've never had trouble discerning fake news.
Besides, the media has never been trustworthy.
Todays media is nearly 100% oped anway.
Trust your gut...not the TV.
If you want to know the truth.... read the Bible and find a good Prophet.
It takes very little effort or intelligence to be a scoffer.

The bible? That's the original fake news. Bunch a stories to keep goat herding nomads in line.

 

[Zombie Acorn]

The only fake news is Timmy suggesting they are actually going to keep the desktop Mac lines up to date.