Because caring about factual accuracy isn’t “defending a corporation.” A claim doesn’t become true (or false!) just because it concerns a "billion dollar corporation".
Besides, Apple isn't a "billion dollar corporation", it's a multi-trillion dollar corporation.
> People don’t like nitpickers. “He literally did the WELL AKTUALLY!” If you say Joe Criminal committed ten murders and five rapes, and I object that it was actually only six murders and two rapes, then why am I “defending” Joe Criminal?
> Because if it’s worth your time to lie, it’s worth my time to correct it.
> If one side lies to make all of their arguments sound 5% stronger, then over long enough it adds up. Unless they want to be left behind, the other side has to make all of their arguments 5% stronger too. Then there’s a new baseline - why not 10%? Why not 20%? This mechanism might sound theoretical when I describe it this way, but go to any space where corrections are discouraged, and you will see exactly this.
I have no proof, only personal experience interacting with commenters on HN. No other tech company gets as much positive support when exerting its soft power under the guise of (bullshit) technicalities, e.g. all the issues with EU digital markets, API restrictions, 30% tax. Specifically, people were defending Apple vehemently when they feature gated remote phone control for EU citing concerns about EUs privacy laws (???).
I never stated that I know for a fact that Apple deploys bots, but I would not be surprised. I don’t even need to know if anyone is paid or not - if I cannot distinguish paid posts from fanatic apologism, then I need not care. The resulting posts are worrying all the same.
Similarly, I do not know if Apple was caught off guard by the demand - I wouldn’t trust this article. But Apple does plan production well ahead of time and forecast demand rather precisely. They could’ve been wrong. Them being unable to produce enough 1/2tb mac studios seems like a loss to me.
Why would anyone attack a billion dollar corporation so vehemently and not earn a single dime? Billion dollar companies also hire hundreds of thousands of employees, paying them a lot. They create products that millions enjoy.
I am surprised this take is controversial. It really seems almost certain whenever enough money is involved in controlling narratives and selling things, regardless of the details.
Certainly employees at these companies are earning more than a single dime, so even if innocent there's still an obvious conflict of interest. That doesn't mean the posters are wrong or their opinions invalid, on the contrary their direct experience is valuable to hear.
But they are certainly paid, and this is fair to remember when reading opinions.
edit: oh, I see, they're focusing on taking the last little bit super literally. great.
Some of us are motivated by interest in facts. I get that others are financially motivated, or focused on sports-style love/hate for organizations.
I can’t imagine coloring my perceptions or actions to ensure they only attack big companies.
But then I also can’t imagine accusing anyone who disagrees with of doing so in bad faith, or of being a paid shill. To me that looks like poisoning your own mind out of the mistaken belief it will somehow effect change.
BTW it’s not even a defense of Apple, it’s an explanation of how the press works. I worked in the tech press decades ago, and it’s only gotten worse since. It is not organized enough for the conspiracy theory in question to be plausible.
