If The New York Times Jumped Off a Bridge

On the fallacious argument that Apple wouldn’t be suing The New York Times if they had published what ThinkSecret did.

via Daring Fireball

A excellent read, but still not convincing enough – though I must admit, he makes a lot of sense. I especially agree about the New York Times analogy being moot, as there was no actual experience to base anything on.

But on the contrary, how is he so sure that Apple will sue said NY Times if it should publish? I mean since he already went hypothetical in the first place that Apple would have more reason to sue. Notice that even that hypothetical situation should also be moot – since, as he himself said, the NY Times isn’t that sort of publication. I guess my point is never try to disprove anything hypothetical with anything similarly hypothetical.

Anyways, that’s all I have to say about that article… end train of thought… period.

But since I’ve gone this far… might as well speak my mind about the issue.

I’m not familiar with the laws really, and this post isn’t intended to even attempt understanding the nuances of such laws. I’m looking at this as a normal, humane, person.

I still think it’s more of a bullying tactic. I’m not saying its only for bullying, mind you. Apple may be well within their rights to sue (else why would they attempt to in the first place), but come on now, when was the last time you heard anybody suing the “media?”

Take for example: publication y posts pictures/videos of person x, in violation of person x‘s privacy. Does person x have the right to sue? Probably so, but can person x force publication y into revealing its sources? Actually I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m betting the outcome of Fred Durst’s issue can shed some light on that… if they choose to take that path, that is (as of now it seems they’re just after the sites and not the sources)

Apple’s legal rights were never in question. NDAs have been violated, trade secrets have been exposed, potential revenue lost, etc. Apple (and any other “violated” entity/person) have every right to seek justice. The issue is to what extent could or should they apply those rights? Journalism and the media have always been a pain in the ass for everyone and everything big, but it’s that same spirit of journalism that has made the world an interesting place to observe (unfortunately, more often than not – at the expense of others). Just imagine if journalism too, was put under such a strict leash? Or if “powerful entities” had more leverage than smaller-fries? I honestly think that though the media sucks, that “right” they have should be preserved – because it can do as much good as it can bad. The last thing societies need is a world where only the powerful get to make and enjoy the laws that govern all… just like now! HAHAHHA.

And of course you have to take a look at the context of everything. It’s not like someone posted information of Jobs having sex with animals to defame the company. ThinkSecret is an Apple enthusiast site – it publishes with the intention of praising Apple. How could Apple be so cold as to strike down on the people who support them?

Of course Apple is also forced to base their actions on their investors’ interests – at the end of the day, it all boils down to money. I don’t blame Apple for being like that. Microsoft’s like that, all other bigwigs are probably like that. The saddening thing is Apple was supposed to be different from the rest… you know; a company that actually cares about it’s customers (If only I had a dollar for every time a company has claimed that) hehehehe. Tough luck for ThinkSecret I guess.

At the rate things are going, as Apple gets bigger and bigger, all you cult members better brace yourself for the day when they too, stop “caring… totally“