Hehe, yeah people who worry about ad. hominem in conversation are all babies! That's an excellent point sir. The nice thing is, no matter how valid their arguments are regarding why ad. hominem attacks warrant concern.. You can always use it, because it targets the arguer and not the argument itself.. It's a brilliant point really.
In other words, you do not own any of your phones at all. You are just using it for as long as samsung chooses to allow you to. Don't worry, you can (have to) put your faith in them that they won't take it away unless they really feel it's necessary. If you don't like it, you should have thought about that before you thought you bought the phone.
"for their own personal pleasure" - does this matter? They are doing the harm. Whether they derive pleasure from it or not. If you murder 4 innocent people to bring a murderer to justice, are you better or worse than the murderer who killed one for his own personal reasons?
In mind my the distinction between selling something as a subscription and selling it by being ad. supported is not a valid distinction, but legally you may be correct. I wonder if this has been tested.. Does a service that is ad. supported need to adhere to the same standards that a service that is subscription supported does? I don't know.
This is a gov't certified excuse to try to make your mistakes disappear instead of owning up to them. Not only that, but it should also chill other people from truthfully reporting the article that you had up in the first place to show how lousy a reporter you are.
What shows in search results is not the responsibility of the author of that article. If the apology wasn't good enough, or the original mistake was bad enough that the apology doesn't make up for it, then crack down on them for those things. Don't crack down on them because they didn't try to cover up what was published.
In my mind the bar should be set high, but if you can prove intent it should be plain old fraud. Intentionally selling something by deceiving the buyer into thinking they are buying something else is already illegal.
Right but in that case the reporter is still reporting something. With fake news there is no fact nor any theory. If they were to make videos, they would need to hire actors to play the scientists and everyone else in the "story" because the "reporter" made the story up.
If you want to know the problem with fake news, talk to the people who make their money making up stuff that prey to people's vulnerabilities. The problem isn't just the usual problem of people being deceptive to sway opinion, it's that people can make money quickly and easily by writing actual fiction that they just come up with on the spot and passing it off as news. The message in fake news isn't a mistake or a lie, there is no message. The lie is that there is something worth anyone's time in the fake news articles. That's what gets them the ad. revenue.
No need for quotes around fake, it has a plain english definition. Fake news is people who are faking news. When they are doing so for profit, it's intentional and it's fraud for ad money. It should be dealt with at the source like everything else not by trying to pretend it's facebook's fault or by pretending it doesn't exist or that an environment that allows making money through deceiving people is tolerable.
In terms of corruption, there might be worse industries, but they are going to pretty damn high up on the list. There aren't many industries that have got as complete a hold on regulation as these guys do. Even the banks and oil companies get reigned in once in a while. The media conglomerates have pretty much evolved to the point where regulatory capture is their business.
Copyright overreach stifles progress, so it's net drain on should be exponential over time as the gains from that progress fail to feed further progress but will be impossible to measure since we won't have any way of knowing how much progress we would have made if we didn't have the breaks on. I would put it very high on the "should fix" list.