• Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yes, that is a more rational take. Though it is from last year, based on the original 404 Media article (not the update from this year which OP’s article is piggybacking off). I would encourage people to just read the 404 Media articles or, if they can’t do that, listen to the 404 team discuss them on their podcast. When you get away from all the clickbait headlines from people trying to make money off 404’s reporting and actually listen to what is being said by the people who know more about this story than anyone else, it becomes pretty clear that this isn’t the slam dunk so many privacy illiterate people on social media would have you think it is.

        • Ilandar@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          404 are investigative journalists, they don’t just report 'news" - they actually go out and find it. When they published the original story they asked for people to contact them with further information, as investigative journalists do. This isn’t reporting the exact same story again, it’s an update to the original story based on new information they’ve acquired.

        • catloaf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          There’s nothing new, news sites are just rerunning the same story because it gets clicks.