Google News buries news of Google's FTC investigation under Daniel Lyons fluff [updated with respons

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 152
    slurpy wrote: »
    That asswipe Dan Lyons is still getting his shit published? How? After years of writing hit pieces against Apple and bashing everything they do, he basically came out and said he just did it for the clicks, he didn't believe most of what he wrote, and it was horse-shit. And he's still allowed to write? Incredible. Even though he admitted he's a lying, trolling piece of shit, he still amassed an army of Apple-hating followers. 

    Tone down the puerile language.

    We all agree with the sentiment, but there's no need to put it in such ugly terms.
  • Reply 102 of 152

    You can believe what you like after evaluating the article and Lyons' response. 

    Note that while he denies a lot, the fact remains that his article was fluff, was written years after the FTC revealed much of its investigation (if not the latest, and most detailed issues) and did in fact push down all relevant, real news on the subject with lightweight garbage, full of inconsistencies and downright lies. 

    If you'd prefer to believe what you want, then great news: Google is customizing your news feed to pipe you exactly what you want to see, confirming your world view. And also providing lots of notoriety for not just Dan Lyons, but also Russia Today and other extremist propaganda sources, blending the line between fact and horseshit, not to mention advertising. 

    Dan Lyons didn't address any of the actual content of the article, or any of his shilling of Google Glass (which he made a very prominent part of his fluff piece) or his disparaging of Apple Watch (which he still hasn't even used. Apple doesn't invite him to events). So I guess we'll have to wait and see whether he's as wrong about that as he was about Linux (which he railed against in the service of SCO), about iPods, iPhones and the iPad he hated so much, not to mention his contempt for Steve Jobs, whose health issues Lyons gloated about in concerned tones right up until Steve died. 

    Let it be known that "Lord Amhran" finds Dan Lyons credible. Anyone else want to sign up on the Lyons Fan List? Gadorguy? 

    Final note: Lyons claimed "Levy made a stink and claimed I was lying. I produced the email that Levy had sent to the business editor of Newsweek and gave it to Howard Kurtz at CNN."

    That's not the story Howard Kurtz at CNN reported: "Daniel Lyons apologizes for Apple interference claim"

    Lyons has an appropriate last name. 
    Lol. Amusing Daniel. It's baiting but I'll indulge. You were the one who wrote an article calling Lyons "Uncredible" yet the bulk of your article is bunk. And let's not forget this isn't the first time you've been caught stirring the pot with innuendo, heresay and outright lies.

    Yes I do find Lyons slightly more credible than yourself because at least Lyons can make posts without using sockpuppet aliases.
  • Reply 103 of 152
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

     

    Dan Lyons has been caught lying so many times that he has no credibility.  Nothing he says is worth listening to.

     

    Why is AI publishing his response here?  **** him.  Make him publish it on his own site.

     

    What is AI afraid of?


    Maybe they are afraid of posting flat out lies themselves?

  • Reply 104 of 152
    "How the CIA made Google". A LONG, two part in-depth report. Fascinating:

    https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
  • Reply 105 of 152
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    "How the CIA made Google". A LONG, two part in-depth report. Fascinating:

    https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
    Breakout the tinfoil hats
  • Reply 106 of 152
    Ouch. I guess a real press organisation might expect a resignation over this. #Awkward
  • Reply 107 of 152
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    Yeah this really took a turn for the cringe. Embarrassing honestly. AI should rein in the slobbering pitbull for a few months. Or indefinitely.
  • Reply 108 of 152
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    This is strong stuff:

     

    If Daniel had simply contacted me before writing his piece, as is standard operating practice for journalists, I could have explained this to him then and spared him the trouble of concocting this elaborate conspiracy theory.



    To accept his "whitewash" theory you have to believe that I saw the FTC news, and then rushed out to write a "Five Myths" piece, then called the Washington Post and got them to publish it in their print edition on Sunday -- as if I could actually do that.



    You also have to believe that I did this all so that maybe, just maybe, it would distract people from the damning FTC news.



    And that maybe Google had a hand in this too, and encouraged me to write an article, so that they could place my story at the top of their Google News rankings after it was published.



    I'm sorry but this theory is beyond crazy. The idea that you guys would even publish something so far-fetched is amazing to me.


     

    The content of Dilger's editorial borders on actionable libel in some respects (I am not a lawyer). The owners of the site should be more cautious about posting editorials that could get them and Dilger sued, IMO. However, I do not own this site and cannot do anything other than shake my head.

     

    Occasionally I find Dilger's commentary amusing, but there is a line between humor and rancor that has definitely been crossed. I find these acid-filled diatribes also strangely at odds with the mild-mannered person who appears in the AI podcasts. The DED in the podcasts is courteous and more witty.

     

    Equally important, the core of this piece (the information regarding the FTC investigation) is completely buried under all of the personal attacks against Lyons, which is just shoddy writing.

  • Reply 109 of 152

    You can believe what you like after evaluating the article and Lyons' response. 

    Note that while he denies a lot, the fact remains that his article was fluff, was written years after the FTC revealed much of its investigation (if not the latest, and most detailed issues) and did in fact push down all relevant, real news on the subject with lightweight garbage, full of inconsistencies and downright lies. 

    If you'd prefer to believe what you want, then great news: Google is customizing your news feed to pipe you exactly what you want to see, confirming your world view. And also providing lots of notoriety for not just Dan Lyons, but also Russia Today and other extremist propaganda sources, blending the line between fact and horseshit, not to mention advertising. 

    Dan Lyons didn't address any of the actual content of the article, or any of his shilling of Google Glass (which he made a very prominent part of his fluff piece) or his disparaging of Apple Watch (which he still hasn't even used. Apple doesn't invite him to events). So I guess we'll have to wait and see whether he's as wrong about that as he was about Linux (which he railed against in the service of SCO), about iPods, iPhones and the iPad he hated so much, not to mention his contempt for Steve Jobs, whose health issues Lyons gloated about in concerned tones right up until Steve died. 

    Let it be known that "Lord Amhran" finds Dan Lyons credible. Anyone else want to sign up on the Lyons Fan List? Gadorguy? 

    Final note: Lyons claimed "Levy made a stink and claimed I was lying. I produced the email that Levy had sent to the business editor of Newsweek and gave it to Howard Kurtz at CNN."

    That's not the story Howard Kurtz at CNN reported: "Daniel Lyons apologizes for Apple interference claim"

    Lyons has an appropriate last name. 

    You know this is comment is from DED because it matches the article's style... Too long and drawn out.
  • Reply 110 of 152
    drewys808drewys808 Posts: 547member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by koop View Post



    Yeah this really took a turn for the cringe. Embarrassing honestly. AI should rein in the slobbering pitbull for a few months. Or indefinitely.



    On the contrary...while Daniel's  piece is full of opinion, it still enlightens many who should be concerned with this topic and with Lyons. There aren't any facts to discredit Daniel's assertions. We should be critical of both sides and rightfully so.

     

    If anything, you as a truth-seeker should encourage AI to author more of these contentious issues.

  • Reply 111 of 152
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

     



    On the contrary...while Daniel's  piece is full of opinion, it still enlightens many who should be concerned with this topic and with Lyons. There aren't any facts to discredit Daniel's assertions. We should be critical of both sides and rightfully so.

     

    If anything, you as a truth-seeker should encourage AI to author more of these contentious issues.




    I think if additional pieces are published here that could result in financial harm or "distress" to Lyons, the odds that a lawsuit follows greatly increase. Lyons hit back pretty hard and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if AI got a letter from his lawyer.

     

    If the simple facts were conveyed without all of the personal opinion by DED, it would be a far better piece of work.

  • Reply 112 of 152
    drewys808drewys808 Posts: 547member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

    So DED does his piece to takedown both Google and Lyons, and guess what -- it's a new story with an eye-catching title that plays favorable to Google's rank algorithms. So guess what, it for a time takes top billing for this particular topic away from Lyons' piece.



    This is not rocket science. This is how Google News works. That's why I said earlier that the whole premise about Google "burying" negative news is completely wrong.  


    I'm not disagreeing with whatever algorithm your are trying to explain...but realize this:

    The general population has no idea what the algorithm is or how it works...so it IS ROCKET SCIENCE!

     

    Therein lies the next big issue of the civilized world...control of the media.

    Media controls knowledge/truth. Knowledge is power.

    If the media is allowed to be controlled by any one ideology then there will be a dangerous imbalance of power.

     

    People are becoming concerned with Google's algorithm, using it as media to sell more advertising, sway our buying habits or innocently attempting to personalize what our computer displays.

     

    Don't try to suggest that you know exactly how the algorithm works. And don't pretend that Google can't just as easily tweak/revise the algorithm (or per Art.Intel). Basically NOBODY knows exactly how it is working at this very instance.

     

    This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a valid concern.

     

    Sure, we can use Yahoo! or Bing.  But having any one company so dominating as Google in the search/ad is probably not good for anyone.

     

     

  • Reply 113 of 152
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

     

    I'm not disagreeing with whatever algorithm your are trying to explain...but realize this:

    The general population has no idea what the algorithm is or how it works...so it IS ROCKET SCIENCE!

     

    Therein lies the next big issue of the civilized world...control of the media.

    Media controls knowledge/truth. Knowledge is power.

    If the media is allowed to be controlled by any one ideology then there will be a dangerous imbalance of power.

     

    People are becoming concerned with Google's algorithm, using it as media to sell more advertising, sway our buying habits or innocently attempting to personalize what our computer displays.

     

    Don't try to suggest that you know exactly how the algorithm works. And don't pretend that Google can't just as easily tweak/revise the algorithm (or per Art.Intel). Basically NOBODY knows exactly how it is working at this very instance.

     

    This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a valid concern.

     

    Sure, we can use Yahoo! or Bing.  But having any one company so dominating as Google in the search/ad is probably not good for anyone.

     

     




    It's not rocket science... it's computer science!

  • Reply 114 of 152
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    This is strong stuff:

     

    If Daniel had simply contacted me before writing his piece, as is standard operating practice for journalists, I could have explained this to him then and spared him the trouble of concocting this elaborate conspiracy theory.



    To accept his "whitewash" theory you have to believe that I saw the FTC news, and then rushed out to write a "Five Myths" piece, then called the Washington Post and got them to publish it in their print edition on Sunday -- as if I could actually do that.



    You also have to believe that I did this all so that maybe, just maybe, it would distract people from the damning FTC news.



    And that maybe Google had a hand in this too, and encouraged me to write an article, so that they could place my story at the top of their Google News rankings after it was published.



    I'm sorry but this theory is beyond crazy. The idea that you guys would even publish something so far-fetched is amazing to me.


     

    The content of Dilger's editorial borders on actionable libel in some respects (I am not a lawyer). The owners of the site should be more cautious about posting editorials that could get them and Dilger sued, IMO. However, I do not own this site and cannot do anything other than shake my head.

     

    Occasionally I find Dilger's commentary amusing, but there is a line between humor and rancor that has definitely been crossed. I find these acid-filled diatribes also strangely at odds with the mild-mannered person who appears in the AI podcasts. The DED in the podcasts is courteous and more witty.

     

    Equally important, the core of this piece (the information regarding the FTC investigation) is completely buried under all of the personal attacks against Lyons, which is just shoddy writing.


     

     

    I couldn't disagree more.

     

    Daniel's writing in the tech world far surpasses anyone else for sheer enjoyment coupled with a rigorous appraisal of data, to a level of detail that no-one else bothers to do. What's more, the target of his wrath, Google, could not be more apt. I am quite sure that Steve Jobs would be cheering him on. 

     

    Google are truly a despicable company. 'Twas not always so, which makes it especially sad. If only power hadn't corrupted them soon after the iPhone arrived. The lust for dominance which drove them to undermine the iPhone will be their undoing. Over the past eight years, it is Daniel Eran who has done more than anyone to call them out for their misdeeds. We are lucky to be blessed with his writing here at Apple Insider.

  • Reply 115 of 152
    waterrocketswaterrockets Posts: 1,231member

    I use Google News all the time, and I consistently see all the latest anti-Google stories mixed in with the tech, business, and some custom sections I have created. I have been unable to detect any bias.

  • Reply 116 of 152
    These DED "editorials" are more often turning into rants that lack some essential fact checking, not to mention going on far too long.
  • Reply 117 of 152
    Breakout the tinfoil hats

    I'd read it first before commenting so flippantly - it's heavily referenced.
  • Reply 118 of 152
    Quote:

    I've shown you some of the ugly stuff that has come my way thanks to Dilger's inaccurate article. Homophobic, anti-Semitic stuff.


     

    Why does Mr. Lyons bring up homophobia and anti-Semitism ? Is he inferring, from association, that DED has precipitated either homophobic or anti-Semitic comments ?

     

    There is absolutely no evidence of any such slander or even vague suggestion of such an intention in DED’s writing, so why is Lyons mentioning this in his rebuttal ? It sounds a lot like ‘boo-hoo, now everyone hates me’ - not, I hasten to add, that one’s sexual orientation or race/religion should ever be subject to abuse in any debate.

     

    If he wants to accuse DED of these slanders he should do so, not try and paint him guilty by vague association. If a journalist criticises my writing, and some commentator subsequently calls me an ass*ole, does that say something about the journalist or the commentator ?

  • Reply 119 of 152
    esoomesoom Posts: 155member
    Lyons is an odd duck, he's admitted to writing "SEO chum" but continues to crank it out.

    I wish he'd find another line of work or industry to trash.
  • Reply 120 of 152
    xixoxixo Posts: 450member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Tone down the puerile language.



    We all agree with the sentiment, but there's no need to put it in such ugly terms.

     

    I agree with toning it down.

     

    Don't agree with the sentiment. You don't speak for me.

     

    Lyons is no hack. His rebuttal letter sounds legit to me. He works for 'real news' organizations.

     

    DED rides a train around China and thinks he's Phineas Fogg.

     

    Plus, Fake Steve Jobs was hilarious until Real Steve Jobs died.

Sign In or Register to comment.