As mentioned in Gruber's retraction (https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/retraction_app_store_reje...) it's the first time he had to retract something in 24 years. It doesn't really make sense to compare the two in any case as the stakes and resources are very different.
I suspect it's much less. Do you know otherwise?
How could a one man operation have the fact checking machinery of some big paper, eg the NYT? Of course it’s less.
Keep in mind that he usually posts multiple times per weekday.
I want to know if the human effort, per story, is the same as other publications. Does Gruber make a real fact checking effort, or does he merely trust his gut?
I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here. Ask Godier for a signed affidavit? Not publish this until he could get a statement from Apple to get their side of the story? (Which is to say, not publish it at all because the chances of Apple giving anyone "their side" of something like this is essentially zero.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49217212
Perhaps engage critical thinking? Apply the CRAAP Test? Seek some independent confirmation of facts, rather than just being a mouthpiece for some hysterical acquaintance? If I had a Bitcoin for every time I heard some gamer was "banned for no reason!!1"
Apple could've denied the app just for clashing with the name of an existing game... a game that involved demons tossing fortune-telling cards around
Yes it does. To fact check this story - he asked the source (twice) if he was lying.
> I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here.
He could have asked for the full text of the rejection letter, which would have revealed the name switch. For starters.
Other journalists make a much stronger effort to avoid these kinds of errors.
Obviously what I did wasn’t enough, but trust me, I try.
Did you ask him for the full rejection letter? That's the issue I raised below. I'm wondering if he forged the app name.
It seems like the situation still remains a little ambiguous - and forging the name on that letter would be definitive proof.
On the other hand, if you didn't ask for it - why not? It seems like the very least amount of verification you could have done.
Did it simply not occur to you that a source might lie?
If you did not ask for the rejection letter - that would indicate that you didn't even do the most basic checking to determine the facts.
And that would seriously color your statement above "Trust me, I try."
I hope you answer.
You try? You need to try much harder.
> my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less
Which is it?