Apple CEO Cook: ‘Fake news’ is ‘killing people’s minds’

“Tim Cook, the boss of Apple, is calling for governments to launch a public information campaign to fight the scourge of fake news, which is ‘killing people’s minds,'” Allister Heath reports for The Telegraph. “In an impassioned plea, Mr Cook, boss of the world’s largest company, says that the epidemic of false reports ‘is a big problem in a lot of the world’ and necessitates a crackdown by the authorities and technology firms.”

“‘It has to be ingrained in the schools, it has to be ingrained in the public,’ said Mr Cook. ‘There has to be a massive campaign. We have to think through every demographic… We need the modern version of a public-service announcement campaign. It can be done quickly if there is a will,'” Heath reports. “‘We are going through this period of time right here where unfortunately some of the people that are winning are the people that spend their time trying to get the most clicks, not tell the most truth,’ he said. ‘It’s killing people’s minds in a way.'”

“Tech firms, which have been criticised for doing too little, also need to up their game, he said. ‘All of us technology companies need to create some tools that help diminish the volume of fake news. We must try to squeeze this without stepping on freedom of speech and of the press, but we must also help the reader. Too many of us are just in the complain category right now and haven’t figured out what to do,'” Heath reports. “‘The [rise of fake news] is a short-term thing – I don’t believe that people want that at the end of the day,’ [Cook said]. A new approach was required in schools, he said. ‘It’s almost as if a new course is required for the modern kid, for the digital kid.’ But he is optimistic. ‘In some ways kids will be the easiest to educate. At least before a certain age, they are very much in listen and understand [mode], and they then push their parents to act.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: If we’re reading this correctly: Holy crap! This is chilling.

Who determines what’s “real” news and what’s “fake?”

Anyone who’s been paying any attention for the last, oh, forever (unlike Cook, who inexplicably thinks this is a “short-term thing”) can cite examples of so-called news that are biased one way or the other. In fact, history is littered with examples where the the facts were altered to suit a specific purpose.

We reread The Telegraph‘s full article six times. Is Cook really saying that the authorities and technology firms need to get the kids indoctrinated while they’re still malleable? If not, what did we miss?

And, are these the same technology firms who donated 60 times more to one party than to the other in the last U.S. Presidential election? If you don’t find that idea chilling, just imagine these “authorities and technology firms” — oh, let’s just call them “Ministry of Truth” (it has a nicer ring to it) — on the side of those espousing ideas that you oppose instead.

In the U.S., for a Democrat, “real” news is MSNBC and “fake” news is Fox News. For a Republican, it’s exactly the opposite. We’re sure it’s similar in every country with a “free press” in the world.

Again, who determines what’s “real” news and what’s “fake?” Cook seems to want “technology companies'” idea of what’s “real” to be “ingrained in the schools” and “ingrained in the public.” Technology companies, again, who donated 99% of their political dollars to one party in the last U.S. Presidential election.

If this is really what Cook desires then… Wow. Just wow.

Oh, good, it’s time for one of those “public service announcements” that Apple CEO Tim Cook mentioned. This one is from the 1940s:

That’s right, at one time, smoking was considered healthy and even said to prevent various illnesses. “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette,” dontcha know?

Telling “the most truth,” no doubt. “Ingrained in the schools, ingrained in the public.” “Killing people’s minds” …via their lungs.

And now for some quotes from George Orwell’s 1984 (you know, the one upon which Apple once based a TV commercial):

• The best books… are those that tell you what you know already.

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern…Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.

The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.

• Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

We’re going to hope and pray that Cook was misquoted and/or taken wildly out of context in this report.

One more quote: Think Different.

Silicon Valley donated 60 times more to Clinton than to Trump – November 7, 2016
99% of Silicon Valley’s political dollars are going to Hillary Clinton – October 25, 2016
Apple refuses to aid 2016 GOP presidential convention over Trump comments – June 18, 2016
Apple and Silicon Valley employees love Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump? Not so much – May 6, 2016


    1. The MDN take illustrates why Orwell wrote 1984. Anyone who cannot tell the difference between biased reporting and a flat lie has lost their moral compass. Despite the efforts of the Ministry of Truth to redefine it, “fake news” is not misreporting, but reporting something that verifiably did not happen. Who do we trust to identify fake news? Ultimately, we must trust the public as a whole to be educated enough to tell the difference between truth and falsehood. All that I see Tim Cook saying here is that we need to do a better job of educating our population—adults and children—to tell the difference instead of regarding anything they see on YouTube or read on the Internet as reliable.

      I wish this site would get back to discussing Apple and its products without unnecessary political sidelines. People in America are clearly entitled to their opinions, and I have tried very hard here to avoid arguing against opinions. However, when somebody makes a statement of objective fact that is verifiably untrue (my definition of “fake news”) and persists in the untruth despite having been presented conclusively refuting evidence, the statement is no longer an opinion, but a lie. I do feel obligated to provide evidence against lies.

      Why do lies bother me? Perhaps because somewhere in my spotted past I acquired a degree in theology. As you might imagine, the students and faculty in an institution of theological learning spend a lot of time discussing matters like truth, falsehood, knowledge, belief, and evidence. We had deep disagreements on the details, but one thing was never in question: truth and falsehood are irreconcilably opposed. One comes from a source known as “The Way, the Truth, and the Life,” while the other comes from “The Father of Lies.” If you are an atheist or agnostic, you may take those names as purely symbolic, but they reflect a duality that everybody recognizes. As far as I can recall, the only well-known person who was ever in doubt on this point was a certain government official who asked “What is truth?” while literally washing his hands of responsibility for the death of an innocent man.

      I also had an undergraduate double major in Political Science. One theme that runs through the discipline is legitimacy, and I learned in law school that our legal system relies on the same principle. A constitutional republic (or monarchy) simply cannot function unless an overwhelming majority of the population regard its institutions as legitimate. Authoritarian states can operate on a different dynamic, of course, but democracies must rely on voluntary compliance with the rules. Citizens may disagree with government or judicial decisions, but they must have confidence that the decisions are being made by folks who value the agreed rules of society and are trying to apply them in the public interest. Minorities must believe that the majority will treat them fairly, which includes the granting of equal protection and due process of law to everyone. One element of legitimacy is a broadly-held belief that the government and courts are basing their decisions on objective evidence and are telling us the truth (apart from very rare instances involving public safety, of course).

      When the government lies, it is not only committing what most people of faith would regard as a sin (although many believers regarded veracity and chastity as optional virtues for a candidate who promised to appoint pro-life judges). Lying also undermines the government’s own legitimacy and takes us one step closer to a loss of public faith that would make constitutional government impossible. Every little lie contributes to the belief that the government is lying about everything, and therefore does not deserve belief in any of its statements or compliance with any of its decisions. Every lie about the size of a crowd or the prevalence of voter fraud or the nonexistence of “extreme vetting” or the national origin of a former President is a wedge driven between the speaker and his credibility, and between the government and the people who must accept its legitimacy to govern.

      So, I will continue to defend to the death the right of every American to hold and express opinions that I find reprehensible, but I will also—and at least equally—defend truth against The Lie.

      1. Blah, blah, blah.

        Did Tim Cook not say “All of us technology companies need to create some tools that help diminish the volume of fake news. We must try to squeeze this without stepping on freedom of speech and of the press, but we must also help the reader” or not?

        Just how does Tim want to “help” the reader? To understand the actual facts, or the facts as Tim Cook sees them?

        The latter. Don’t pretend to be obtuse. Don’t always expect that the shoe will be on the other foot.

        As MDN so clearly asked, Who determines what’s “real” news and what’s “fake?”

        There can be no final arbiter. Certainly not biased tech companies headed by wannabe SJWs.

        1. You are confusing fact from opinion.

          When the news reports that 32,675 people attended a concert, based on ticket sales, at an arena that seats 60,000. Many pictures were taken at this concert. Every picture showing many open seats. That’s NOT “fake news”. That is a FACT.

          Same concert, lead singer is interviewed and says there were at least 90,000 people at the concert, all seats were full and it was standing room only. That IS “fake news”.

          Who’s really creating the “fake news”?

            1. little bittybotty…I gather the Trump is still looking for a Communications Director. The main requiremhent, apart from Stockholm Syndrome levels of blind obedience, a propensity for gutter-level discourse, being psychologically incapable of empathy, racial tolerance or common humanity, an amoeba’s IQ awareness of humanity’s responsibility for planet earth, complete ignorance of historical fact, the law and the real meaning and implications of the Constitution unbounded by supreme arrogance….to name a few…is….
              The ability to survive in a nest of vipers.
              You would fit right in.

      2. Verified lies from Barack Hussein Obama (a very partial list):

        – “The steel industry is producing as much steel in the United States as it ever was. It’s just (that) it needs one-tenth of the workers that it used to.”

        – “My position hasn’t changed” on using executive authority to address immigration issues.

        – Says his comment about extremists being a JV team “wasn’t specifically referring to” Islamic State.

        – “Most young Americans right now, they’re not covered” by health insurance.

        – “We’ve got close to 7 million Americans who have access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion.”

        – The “most realistic estimates” for jobs created by Keystone XL are “maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline.”

        – “Fast and Furious” began under the Bush administration.


        I could go on… and on… and on…

        1. Some of those are not “fake news” regarding facts, but opinions that you don’t agree with. However, just for the sake of argument, let us assume that none of them is factually correct.

          The difference between the current Administration and every past one is that they had the decency to act embarrassed when they were caught shading the truth. Big Brother and his Ministry of Truth (in the book and in real life) simply double down and repeat the untruth. “Comical Ali” insists that the Americans are miles from Baghdad when there are maneuvering tanks visible directly behind him at the press conference. Sean Spicer denies that Big Brother made statements quoted from his own tweets and interviews.

          The first time the government tells a particular untruth, one could excuse it as an oversight, but when they repeat it in the face of overwhelming proof of its falsity, it is properly called a lie. I can see no difference between Orwell’s Newspeak and “alternative facts,” and neither can anybody else who values truth above power.

          Lies are perhaps the most corrosive threat to the body politic, because they destroy honesty and trust within the community. Again, I’m not talking about opinions or slanted reporting, but just flat lying about things that never happened when the speaker knows better.

      3. Txuser,

        Really!? “I wish this site would get back to discussing Apple and its products without unnecessary political sidelines.” Really!?

        Is there any part of you that wishes Tim Cook-remember him, Apple’s CEO- would get back to focusing on products without the unnecessary political sidelines? The irony is rich.

        I wish Ol’ Pipeline Tim could be as tight lipped about his politics as he is about Apple’s supposed future products. It’s honestly getting just tiring. If he wants to follow Steve Jobs example, start with keeping your mouth shut about politics. Or at the very least, make sure you’re killing it with your day job, which you are clearly not, before getting involved in every political cause. And for goodness sake, quit abusing company resources on one-sided ideologies.

        Nobody wanted to believe in Tim more than me but defending him and his comments have become exhausting.

        1. Botty, beautiful! One image that says it all.

          The legendary “think different” Apple has now been hijacked by the Clueless Cook runway, or is it run away, politically correct and activist crowd. Steve would not approve, but obviously Cook does not heed the advice.

          Meanwhile, no new Mac Pro desktops, iPad upgrades, routers and monitors dead, buggy release software, iClouded and on and on. Liquid metal products? Apple TV? Project Titan? Oh sorry, all in the pipeline.

          Question for the Apple Board: Do you pay Cook to be a one-sided political activist on the company dime or do you pay him to be an impartial CEO of the largest company on planet Earth? 🤔

          Don’t take your time …

      4. Thank you for your eloquent and substantive words.

        I’ve long maintained that there is only room for opinion in the absence of fact, in the absence of knowledge. I don’t “believe” the sky is blue in Texas at noontime. I can see it, measure it, and predict it. If, for some reason the sky is any other color, I seek that reason and collect facts to show why it is so.

        This is nothing new, it’s the scientific method, advancing the “secular truth” since Galileo. I say secular truth, because there are other paths to seeking (not necessarily achieving) the truth, and that is though faith. Faith is not science, and that is good for both.

        So do we abolish news based on the absence or inadequacy of scientific facts? No…we simply give the commensurate amount of credit to them. News reporting should strive for the highest levels of consistent and verifiable credibility, if they are to be believed.

        Then there is the flip side, and you’ve already touched on that. One should not only judge the speaker, but the listener as well. We are perfectly within our rights to believe falsehoods, but we are perfectly within our responsibilities to suffer the consequences. Democracy ensures that people have the “right to be wrong”.

      5. TxUser said, “I wish this site would get back to discussing Apple and its products without unnecessary political sidelines.”

        We ARE discussing Apple. It is Tim Cook who keeps opening the door to these “political sidelines.”

        1. You were probably equally stunned to discover that Apple is a multinational corporation that is directly affected by the political climate in the countries where it operates. Tim Cook has to deal with a very different climate than the one when Steve Job was in command. I assume that Jobs would have dealt with the world we now live in, not the one we lived in thirty years ago. He was obsessed with making Apple and America great in a bright future, not making them “great again.”

          In THIS world, political discourse is being poisoned by lies from both the left and right. One element in their propagation is the connected world that Jobs took a leading role in creating. We now have a plethora of alternative news sources quite properly offering alternative views.

          The problem is that a lot of them (on both sides) are offering “alternative facts” to support their views. They are reporting things that are simply not true, and when they are called on the error, they double down on it. At the most charitable, that converts what was a mistake of fact into a deliberate lie.

          Quite obviously, people on both sides are confusing those “alternative facts” with real facts that can be ground-truthed. Because there are so many slanted “news” sources available to confirm a reader’s pre-existing notions, consumers (Apple customers) may never be exposed to the evidence that refutes the lies.

          Tim Cook—when viewed through less than paranoid eyes—is not remotely suggesting that the government or Apple should act as a censor. He specifically says that the First Amendment mandates the free exchange of ideas. What he is suggesting is that individual readers should be given the tools to distinguish between truth (verifiable facts) and truthiness (something that sounds factual because it fits your worldview, even though there is no evidence to support it).

          Specifically, he is suggesting that the high tech firms that have made this situation possible by allowing the instant spread of unsubstantiated rumors should take a role in providing their customers with the tools for distinguishing between truth and falsehood.

          As Steve Jobs might say, Apple and its competitors have the bad karma from developing the means for this situation to develop, so they might want to counteract that by choosing the good karma of helping to solve it.

          1. That all sounds so nice in a perfect world. But realistically, it can’t be done with algorithms. They are fed from various sources and programmed by people, for certain people, with selective information and more importantly– information that is not yet available.

            For example: lawyers and doctors maintain client confidentially. Media reporters protect confidential sources off the record. CIA, FBI, other government agencies as well as Apple beta testers work under confidentiality agreements. Police keep crime scene evidence under lock and key.

            “You don’t come across truth that easy.”

            — Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman), Absence of Malice, 1981

          1. I’m glad at least one person understood what I was saying. The truth of a statement is determined by the facts. Truth will always defeat falsehood, but only for someone who is exposed to the evidence. Cook is saying that we are currently living in a world—thanks in large part to the modern technology promoted by Apple—where truth can be drowned out by the sheer volume of falsehoods.

            The future of our country and planet may depend on finding tools for ordinary people to cut through the lies to find the facts. With the facts, ordinary people can be trusted to distinguish between lies and truth for themselves without any interference from a Ministry of Truth.

            1. Anyone arguing that “the facts” will determine the truth is clearly a brainwashed dolt. There’s no way anyone savvy for the multitudes of ways the media lies, distorts, tells half-truths, incomplete truths, and purposefully fails to report on certain things at all can argue that our current news system is in any way related to truth or “facts”.

            2. Spot on!

              Allow me to add a few realisms pipe-dream Tim never thought about.

              We all know the media is biased, all media, both left and right leanings. What Jesus algorithm will ever decide the final arbiter of the Gods’ honest truth? CNN or Fox News? New York Daily News or the New York Post? Salon or Slate? Therein lies the problem.

              Some of my best friends have worked in the media for decades and tell me newsrooms are dominated by Democrat voters, upwards of 90%. So, just how does a moderate or a conservative get a fair shake at the facts?

              Newsrooms are also partially responsible for the creation and now present day the staunchest guardians of political correctness. An interesting theory that too often relies on alternative reality, political like minded allies and more times than not — facts be damned.

              Strongly back curing cancer and heart disease instead, Tim. Many more lives will be impacted for the betterment of mankind. Far and away much, much, more numbers than the Left coast and Manhattan boutique celebrity cocktail crowd causes … 🍸🍤🍷🍹🍢

          2. I thought I as replying to @TxUser, but you’ll do.

            Normally, I would agree with your post and always believed that facts trump everything.

            Problem is some people believe in alternative facts. Remember hands up, don’t shoot.

      6. You forgot to mention other lies like being able to keep you doctor, insurance prices dropping, refugees are women and children, not a smidgeon of corruption, 95% of gun crimes in Mexico are committed with guns from the U.S.

    2. This is shocking reading. I would not have believed it otherwise. I’ve been a Cook supporter (more or less) but he appears to have jumped the shark here. I’m gobsmacked!

    3. Well said, @Journo.

      MDN: For as long as I have been reading your takes, this one is particularly outstanding! One for the ages IMHO and comforting in that your sense of justice and truth at the end of the day, prevails above all else.

      Certainly, I can add commentary pointing out how clueless Cook is — but your take SAYS IT ALL. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

    4. MDN Takes are often interesting, but they contain both fact and supposition. In this case I disagree with the following MDN assertion:

      “In the U.S., for a Democrat, “real” news is MSNBC and “fake” news is Fox News. For a Republican, it’s exactly the opposite.”

      That makes it sound like a 50/50 situation, which is inaccurate. “Real” news for most moderate to leftists comes from a much wider variety of sources than just MSNBC. The same is not true for most rightists. Fox News was tailored for the right and there are a few other sources tailored to conservative causes.

      Just like in situations involving science, in which the right is willing to discount/ignore a preponderance of the sources and evidence in favor of one or a few studies that support the conservative agenda, the same is true for new sources.

      I have watched Fox News over the years, and it has increasingly become a source of personal opinions over facts.

  1. Fake News has been the Neo-Liberal call for lack of personal accountability. Trump was elected? It’s the fault of fake news!!! Do Neo-Liberals even consider that they have very real issues that are the reasons they lost the election? NOPE. Wha wha wha!! Whining violent babies. Meanwhile they ignore the very real news of Muslim extremist that committed rape en masse in Germany on new years a few years back (ask any Neo-liberal, they will not have heard about it). The arrogance of Neo-Liberals is never ending, they think so highly of themselves they would be the first to bring about a totalitarian state that would quickly lead to true fascism. Sad.

    1. What Cook really fears is that the loss of leftist control over the “news” is “killing people’s minds” to being receptive to the lie that is statist globalism.

    2. “In some ways kids will be the easiest to educate. At least before a certain age, they are very much in listen and understand [mode]”

      That’s what’s wrong with this country now, since the liberals have taken over the educational system. Indoctrinating the kids with their pro-homosexual, pro-choice, “gotta have diversity” bullshit.

      1. The real BS is the wolves in sheep’s clothing claiming to be anti-liberal conservatives when they are calling for Big Brother Big Government to extend its tiny grabbing hands into every conceivable cranny of our lives, emphatically including every cranny of our own bodies.

        1. “Big Government to extend its tiny grabbing hands into every conceivable cranny of our lives …”

          Anti-liberal AND moderate conservatives are calling for no such thing, a figment of your imagination.

          The real deal total BS is the pretend open minded leftists who are behind exactly what you accuse the rightists.

          Free speech, check political correctness and ask Milo about the Berkeley riots. Shutting down a gay conservative (alternative voice) invited speaking engagement, tsk, tsk.

          Keep your doctor and your premiums will go down. Affordable Care Act, my ass. Don’t have medical insurance? The law forced you to buy it or the IRS pays you a visit.

          My religious beliefs prevent me from endorsing your lifestyle, I’m sorry. Outrage, protests, shut them down, sue them and take away their hard earned business.

          Just three examples of the misguided left who know much more about invading and controlling crannies …

    3. Bullshit, G-Spank, whatever, and botty. You guys are spouting that same bullshit as always. Like Trump, you spew in such volume that tens pieces of shite are produced for each one that is flushed. Through sheer volume, you hope to overwhelm the weak. It won’t work.

      1. Wrong. You got spanked!

        Back to your post: Ten pieces? I guess you should know. Personally, I am not in your league and don’t count shite! And not sure the Lib toilet is working tonight, either. Possibly waiting for the 2018 repairman no show … 💩

  2. We live in an information economy, but I don’t believe we live in an information society. People are thinking less than they used to. It’s primarily because of television. When you’re young, you look at television and think, “Why is the television programming so bad? Why are television shows so demeaning, so poor?” The first thought that occurs to you is: Well, there is a conspiracy: the networks that are controlling this are feeding us this slop because its cheap to produce, and to try and dumb us down, because of this because of that. I thought it was a giant conspiracy to rob the American populace of their mind if not their soul. But then I found out the truth, which is far more depressing, which is the networks give people precisely what they want. The truth of the matter, if you study it in any depth, is that networks absolutely want to give people what they want so that they will watch the shows. If people wanted something different, they would get it.

    The reason people want this stuff is, they come home from a long day, they have dinner with their kids and they’re fighting, and they get them to bed, and they just wanna turn on the television and turn off their brain for half an hour, and that’s what they get. I must admit I don’t watch much TV, but I do that every once in a while, after a long hard day I will turn on the TV for half an hour, and it really does turn your brain off.

    That’s far more depressing than a conspiracy. Conspiracies are much more fun! Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth. The vast majority of the public are pretty mindless most of the time. People are reading less and they’re certainly thinking less.

    Excerpt From: Owens, J.T. “Steve Jobs: The Unauthorized Autobiography.”

    1. How come this gets 5 stars when Jobs is saying exactly what Cook said? They are both saying that we need to educate the public to recognize the difference between the truth and lies, that we are currently doing a piss-poor job of that, and we need to do better.

      1. You vote for the leaders of your ideological clan, and against their opponents. The ideas get changed around sometimes, but you’ll adjust and still vote the same way. The leaders themselves, far more than the specific ideas they espouse, are what people recognise and follow. The same can be said of sheep and cattle.

      2. You are worried about star ratings, seriously?

        Putting aside the manipulative efforts to change results this is one thing you need to remember — they are unscientific and not credible.

        So, don’t worry, be happy … 😊

  3. If he really means this, then Tim Cook must go.

    Go run the “Ministry of Truth,” Tim, you delusional leftist SJW fsck. Apple will be better off without you and your groupthink.

  4. “Real” vs. “Fake” news:

    The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said the administration had shown “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had committed terrorist acts in the United States.

    Source: The New York Times, February 9, 2017

    Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by President Trump’s Vetting Order

    The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

    Somalia: 20
    Yemen: 19
    Iraq: 19
    Syria: 7
    Iran: 4
    Libya: 2
    Sudan: 1
    Total: 72

    According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

    Source: The Center for Immigration Studies, February 11, 2017

    1. One might question the numbers here, but even if they are true, they don’t have any bearing on the 9th Circuit hearing. The Court quite specifically asked the Government to provide evidence and it declined to do so. They preferred to rely on their legal argument that the President has the power to act even when there are no facts to support his action. Judges rely on the evidence in the record that is presented by the parties, and only on such evidence. They don’t go looking for extraneous evidence to support the Government’s position when the Government has intentionally failed to present any evidence on the record.

      1. All of these so-called judges had access to the following law:

        8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

        Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

        Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

      2. Yes, they had access to that 1952 statute, but they also had access to the 1965 statute amending the Immigration Act to prohibit discrimination in admission decisions on the basis or race, religion, or national origin.

        Even a so-called literate person ought to understand that.

      3. So how does a judge have any right to insert himself into foreign policy? How does any judge have a right to insert themselves into immigration policy that does not relate to anyone standing on US soil?

        Are you asserting that judges have the right to unilaterally throw out any portion of foreign policy from any president at any time for political reasons? Any judge can do this?

        How is the government supposed to function at all if unelected judges are now able to dictate foreign policy?

  5. I have been an Apple devotee for many years, and probably will continue to be one for a long time. But when the CEO is using terms like “ingrained” and it’s explicitly clear that he means only his viewpoints are what should be ingrained, this is tipping on the edge of totalitarianism. The next logical step would be to have those who disagree with so-called “correct thinking” sent to government re-education centers.

    Example: I state that I disagree with former President Obama’s decision to nix the Keystone pipeline project. In the present day, I am immediately called a racist to my face by co-workers (this actually happened, by the way). In the near-future, I would not only be labeled a racist for disagreeing with a politician’s decision, but would also be sent to a government re-education center for some Manchurian candidate-style mind adjustments.

    “All of us technology companies need to create some tools that help diminish the volume of fake news. We must try to squeeze this without stepping on freedom of speech and of the press, but we must also help the reader.” — Tim Cook

    “…help the reader”. Help them how, Mr. Cook? By allowing them to read a singular viewpoint approved by the central committee? Does anyone else think it’s ironic that liberals decry any form of censorship, unless it’s needed for their cause? It’s honestly more frightening than ironic. And it should be damn frightening to everyone, regardless of your political views.

  6. Cook: It’s almost as if a new course is required for the modern kid, for the digital kid.

    MDN: Who determines what’s “real” news and what’s “fake?”

    Suggested answer: Society is best served when everyone takes responsibility for scrutinizing what they read and hear before passing it on.

    I was maybe 13 years old or younger when one of my teachers taught a few lessons on how to watch for bias when reading a newspaper. The purpose of another lesson was to increase awareness of the words and images used in commercials to entice a potential buyer. Another class stressed the importance of providing references to substantiate one’s claims while writing a paper.

    If that’s the kind of education that Cook is advocating, I’m all for it.

    Do a web search on any kind of malady and among the search results will be sites promulgating all kinds of quackery. In my own network are people who pass along unsubstantiated rumors and urban legends by email. People are better served if they know how to ask useful questions about information and its sources before lending it credibility.

  7. Truth and accuracy are not concerns for most people these days. They believe what aligns with their personal positions more often these days.

    This is the results that accuse from what some call ‘gubmint’ schools. That God my kids are in their ’30s now. I fear what my grandkids will have to deal with now…

        1. If Botty had his way, he would allow education systems to degrade into lowest common denominator evangelical bullshit as a good enough proxy for real education.

          Brainwashing out of a bible is easy because no proof or logic is required. To millions of people, that is all the education they want or feel they need. “Faith” is acceptable evidence to explain away anything. Problem is, in the modern world, you have to have modern skills that were not even dreamed of 2k years ago.

          Some people whine about standards because they just can’t achieve them. Teaching science and math is hard because you actually have to think, and you have to prove what is real. No surprise that botty can’t accept national standards. It’s because his personal standards are so low.

          From my perspective, I see deVos as an ignoramus who has no clue how to improve performance in underfunded schools because her answer to improving average education is to leave inner city kids with no resources while supporting private schools for rich kids.

          1. I have no problem with faith. A non-politicized faith also seeks the truth, the methods differ. Faith as you say is not proof, so it can never be science.

            Keep it out of government, and keep it out of science class.

  8. I really enjoy reading the posts others have made on this topic by the way.

    I think “news” is often related to propaganda and selling more than information but a visceral emotional response in the readers for or against a certain topic. It’s divisive to say the least but as MDN has pointed out it’s been part of human behavior for a long time.

    The best logical approach I’ve seen so far is the standard scientific method, and most of their results are found in scientific peer reviewed journals. Still this is only valid for a quantitative approach, when it comes to a qualitative approach there is no standard, hence the field day that the media has with propaganda.

    TxUser, I’ve really been enjoying your come back and your posts. I find your quote “one thing was never in question: truth and falsehood are irreconcilably opposed.” to be of particular interest because I too in most cases abhor lies but I did have an anecdote told to me by someone that I found interesting.

    It’s about an idiot. Everyone told him that it was an idiot, and that was true, except for one person who said to the idiot that he was brilliant. Now this idiot decided to believe the lie, and applied himself and over time and with dedication did become brilliant. The truth had become a lie and the lie had become true, showing that change is one constant that reality does not ignore.

    1. That anecdote is fascinating! It adroitly illustrates the logical fallacies that truth is timeless and that truth is absolute. Well stated!

      It also offers a ray of hope for the rehabilitation of someone who believes “wrongly”…if that someone is afforded even a bit of encouragement, instead of wholesale denunciation. Something to remember whilst lambasting those holding opposing views on an internet forum…

      1. Thanks for your reply, you got a lot of insights from that post part of the reason I do write this stuff.

        Be aware that there are some that will not change regardless of what you’d do, that are so far gone from the level playing field that they will engage in aggressive aggressive behavior regardless of whether or not you have a WMD program or not. More potent and enduring measures are required to get those types back on track.

  9. “In the U.S., for a Democrat, “real” news is MSNBC and “fake” news is Fox News. For a Republican, it’s exactly the opposite. We’re sure it’s similar in every country with a “free press” in the world.”

    Wrong, there are countries where all major parties form the government, such as Switzerland

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.