SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
So Apple's got its very own newsreader app, aptly called News. It will come natively installed on its iOS 9 mobile operating system this fall. This adds to the list of third parties that publishers have come to rely upon to distribute their stories. Apple says one of the most appealing things about News is stories will look and feel distinctive, as if they're coming directly from publishers' own sites, creating a sense of independent control over their own content.
And yet.
As with its Podcasts app, iTunes, and the App Store, News is Apple's app, which means Apple is the ultimate arbiter of what appears on it. Shortly after announcing News, the company released a publishing guide. So far, it seems targeted largely at developers testing the app and figuring out how to publish on it ahead of its official release. But the guide does say "channels" will need to be approved by Apple, meaning Apple will determine to some extent what is or is not allowed on News.
And this matters at a time when a few prominent tech companies are becoming the stewards of the news millions of people see, read, watch, and experience each day. Social sites like Facebook and Twitter are the entry point for many readers checking the news daily—not to mention Google News. And each has its own standards for what it will and will not allow to appear. Now that Apple has committed to becoming a publisher, another tech giant will be mediating the news that the public consumes. This means the standards Apple chooses to follow will have a direct impact on what millions of readers see—or don't see.
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/apples-news-app-gives-power-decide-whats-news/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @11:28AM
Its very well proven that the benefits far outweigh the risks. So then what's the complaint? That they aren't 100% perfectly effective and completely harmless? You live in reality, nothing is perfect and nothing is harmless, thats why we weight things on a scale of "risk vs benefit". If not being 100% absolutely safe and effective is a requirement, then you will be too paralyzed by fear to do literally anything - you cannot take any kind of medicine at all, nor can you drink anything (liquids such as water can kill you in many different ways, not safe at all!), nor eat anything (food and stuff in food can kill you too!), nor use any kind of machinery or tool, nor even go outside; even staying inside is unsafe! The benefits for everything listed are great enough that they outweigh the risks - regardless of how potentially harmful they are, the benefits are enough to make it worth the risk. Vaccines are the same, the benefits of being vaccinated and living in a vaccinated society far outweigh the risks inherent in the vaccinations themselves.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 17 2015, @12:09AM
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
I can accept the risks. Guess what? You're going to die. Going to happen my friend. Yeah, there are "risks" to walking around, breathing, the human condition.....
What I cannot accept... is some rich fucker on a private plane, who is only rich because he made me and my family accept risks for his greater profit . That's the real issue, not whether or not risk exists. What is so wholly unconscionable about them pushing the risks on to us, is the information asymmetry whereby the risk is explained differently, that it's in accordance with established production guidelines, blah, blah, blah. It's the lies, and then it's the willful ignorance of the truth, when the truth becomes inconvenient to the executives wallets and the all mighty shareholder.
Unlike you pathetic attempt to paint my objections as fear mongering, corporations have been wildly successful, or the PEOPLE inside them, at knowingly pushing risks onto consumers for profit. If I tell you to go into a building and pick up an object and bring it back to me for $50, are you going to be so tough when you're paralyzed from the faulty equipment I failed to mention? I don't think so pal. You'll bitch, moan, cry, and try to get a viral video about the mean executive man who told you to go into the building without explaining to you those additional risks. You'll complain wildly from your wheel chair on how regulation needs to exist to protect you.
Guess what? I get to feel this way with a free pass since the FDA has made it plenty clear that thousands of deaths due to reckless science, falsified studies, poor manufacturing oversight, etc. not being properly managed by the FDA, isn't enough to follow their own laws and bring accountability to these corporations. In our medical community, they applied to the Too-Big-To-Fail mantra and let people run free (and richer) that should be in prison for mass murder. Just like Wall Street gets handed a pass, a bunch of money, and no accountability, the Medical community gets treated special.
Ohh, I already fucking said I would take my kids should I ever have to them to another country. I don't argue the overall scientific facts surrounding vaccines, just the particulars about some new ones, and whether or not regulation exists and is appropriate. Now, that's an issue for governments, NOT science. My complete lack of confidence is in the scientific and medical community's ethics and integrity, at least in the U.S. I do believe it should be possible in a suitably advanced country with good healthcare (U.S is way way behind) to trust the source of the vaccines. Their regulatory bodies might not be wholly corrupt institutions.
Fuck, our FDA is led by a Monsanto puppet. Tell me about your sophisticated understanding of the risks and their sources again? I wait with bated breath.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.