wonder why Mike Issac gave that clarification immediately to his twitter-base but didn't put it in the relevant section?
could it be because the article intentionally glosses over complex details in order to pump a specific narrative ... hmm. \s
could it be because the article intentionally glosses over complex details in order to pump a specific narrative ... hmm. \s
Here's the change in question: http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1383350/1383404/https%3A/www.nytim...
changing "tracking" to "identifying and tagging" and changing "even after its app had been deleted from the devices, violating Apple's..." to "even after its app had been deleted and the devices erased — a fraud detection maneuver that violated Apple's..."
In a really long article like this which is probably under some time pressure to publish, there's almost always things that seem clear to the author aren't to the reader. This is a standard clarification bug fix, and tweets were over an hour after the article was published - enough time to gather feedback and realize the need for clarification.
At least in this instance, the only specific narrative being pumped is the one that journalists are always pumping a specific narrative on touchy subjects.
The tweet responses:
> @MikeIsaac 32 minutes ago > Since the line about fingerprinting is being misinterpreted(though it is explained later in piece) adding language up top to better explain.
> @MikeIsaac 31 minutes ago > appreciate Technical community's concerns about how It is presented. Uber was not tracking location after device wipe (which I never said).
> @dangillmor 30 minutes ago > What exactly were they tracking? Not entirely clear (at least to me).
> @MikeIsaac 29 minutes ago > ID-ing devices. so if I steal a phone and wipe it, they can still determine I had that phone and used it to defraud uber, using other data
Clever, but it's disappointing that even NYT is turning into this madness.
The correction bounces around but never takes hold the way the initial claim does and people quietly go on believing their initial interpretation. Sad.
Note that this was at least 4 hours after the outrage on Twitter started. Seems like a very intentional, well-calculated strategy indeed.
That comment seems a bit disingenuous. i.e. it's entirely possible it takes a journo 20 seconds to post a correct to a twitter account he/she controls and 4 hours/days/weeks to get his/her editors to sign off on the same correct and the change pushed to the news website.