I'm reminded of the Naomi Wu controversy; people just assume that they're not "legitimate".
Also people fail to understand that this is not "reporting" in any sense, nor is this unusual - it's a press release that has been sent out verbatim as wire copy through Reuters. It's entirely routine for startups etc to send these things out and they just get printed as-is.
TLDR; Rushed journalists didn't understand complicated new reporting format at first.
He didn't say data was untrustworthy, he said the reporters were in a hurry.
Per author: Reporters have a 30 minute window between receiving the report and the expiration of embargo. The format changed because we are giving a new kind of unemployment payment. The data is complicated and the aggregate of the new PEUC+state unemployment claims number is several pages into the report.
Ah, I missed that the line that mentions the report wasn't talking about the report as a whole. Sounded like the second line was getting its information from somewhere other than that report.
The article is poorly researched and is not explaining the 14 day thing correctly. I'm sure that the actual email will be leaked at some point but since it is listed as internal only, just know that it isn't what is described in the article.
You simply gave a summary of the first article's summary and then falsely claimed there were no details.
The articles are summaries of what the government and the companies discovered. Read the indictment linked in the last article or the reports from the companies for details.
I don't see what the problem is. As the article and its linked sources mention, this is according to Politico and NYT's inside sources who are not authorized to speak publicly. This sounds consistent with "US eyes antitrust investigation".
And it's as much as you're going to get until "US formally announces antitrust investigation".
Is there a source for this? It looks like the document is hosted via the FCC's electronic comment filing system API, but I can't find a news source for this at all.
"The company disputed the initial order in 2007 because it deemed the bulk demand for email metadata to be unconstitutionally broad."
That is neither what the government demanded nor the reason Yahoo appealed. How did the reporter get this so wrong?
reply