[flagged]
Lina Khan is the FTC chairperson. The FTC regulates monopolies, so it can be said Lina Khan regulates monopolies. [Assumption by the FTC] Apple is a monopoly.
Based on this assumption we can say that Lina Khan regulates Apple (and others).
Apple did not want to produce an episode of a show which might mention Apple (or companies like it) in a negative way. This would likely have happened because the FTC has increasingly focused on tech monopolies.
Is the headline really that wrong? The fact that we publicly learned that Apple didn't want to produce an episode featuring the FTC chairperson is what is referred to as censorship here. Of course that is simply editorial control by the producers - but it does feel like a protective move, retaliation or something in between.
I don't find the story interesting (no company would produce content which could make the company itself look bad), but I do not believe it to be wrong as you allege.
But also, as you point out - it was a normal editorial decision, not censorship. I personally thing it was unwise - I think it would have been better for them to produce the show.
However, we aren’t talking about your interpretation of the article. We basically agree on that.
My comment was that the headline is a lie. I think that’s accurate.
1. Apple didn’t censor anything. 2. Apple didn’t get ‘caught’ doing anything. 3. Khan isn’t Apple’s own regulator.
Even if we agree to disagree on #3. The headline writer knew both 1 and 2 because they read the article. Therefore they lied.
- Straw Man;
- False Dilemma;
- Begging the Question;
- Oversimplification;
- Ad Hominem;
- Would you care to comment?
I don’t like dishonest headlines and vague smears, which I see too much of in a site that is meant to be known for curious discussion. Apple isn’t the only victim - I just happen to be noticing it today.