It's a classic example of misdirection. If you can put the focus on discrediting the messenger, then people will assume the message itself is meaningless. It's why people dismiss right-wing arguments by accusing the speaker of getting his information from "Faux News" and left-wing arguments by claiming they're from the "liberal-controlled MSM", for example.
Your third link, with the text "prevent DIYers and non-Apple-approved repair shops", doesn't really support your point. It links to an article about an image of an alleged Apple-designed screw of a proprietary design; but the article states (in an update) that the image was fabricated by a Swedish design company that was experimenting with how Apple rumors spread across the internet.
Isn't that essentially what recording, compressing, and sending a file over a computer does? I mean, the way you just described it sounds like what would happen if I typed the bible into a word processor, saved it, and emailed it to someone in China.
Considering how badly tech issues seem to get handled in courts (though maybe that's just bias considering this is a website that tends to report the bad issues), I think she's lucky the judge didn't overreact, assume the evidence was deleted, and give her a hefty fine or prison term.
What gets me is that the page they throw up if they detect an ad blocker says to turn it off "to continue into Forbes' ad-light experience." When I use adblock, it tells me how many things it blocked, and just to show that page, the number is in the double digits.
When I click on a Forbes link, I get that fun page telling me to turn off my ad blocker to enjoy their "ad-light" experience. Meanwhile, AdBlock tells me how many items it blocked in loading that page, and the number is always in the double-digits.
I'm not sure if they just don't know how many ads they're trying to serve me, they think I'm stupid to not realize they're showing me a dozen ads per page, or if they honestly think that many ads is really "light". But the end result is the same; I haven't seen an article on their site in a long time.
Reluctant? They're practically tripping over themselves not to follow suit. Here's CNN (as just one example) going right from that sheriff's statement, to proudly announcing that they are reporting his name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5U_XD4kDJ4 (The YouTube uploader bleeped his name out.)
And then they go and read his statement about how you get more press with a higher kill count, totally oblivious to how they're just giving him exactly what he wants.
> Apparently other streaming competitors like the Roku and game consoles have yet to see Amazon's ire and will remain sold, for now.
If I read it correctly, they're not carrying devices that don't work with their service. I watch Amazon Video on my Xbox just fine. And going by Roku's website, Amazon Video works there, too. So they wouldn't block those for that reason.
Does it mean they could decide to drop products that also support competitors (regardless of whether they also support Amazon Video)? That would be a bigger can of worms.
Considering they dropped support for my phone 4 months after I bought it (it still works, but it was excluded from receiving any further OS or firmware updates), and they just did the same to another one two months after they started selling it, I have no intention of buying another T-Mobile-branded phone.
If they want to keep me as a customer, they'd better not consider me a "bad guy" for buying a phone without their brand, locks, and lack of support.