Apple has released a scaremongering, self-serving warning aimed at the Australian government, claiming that Australians will be overrun by a parade of digital horribles if Australia follows the European Union’s lead and regulates Apple’s “walled garden.” The EU’s Digital Markets Act is a big,...
As a reader, you can’t rely on headlines to be a replacement for reading the article. Headlines tend to be shorter than the corresponding article and require a level of summarization to be effective.
But I’m not criticizing them for failing to summarize the entire article in the headline. I’m criticizing them for being biased - and for clearly showing that bias in how they chose to write the headline. This isn’t neutral reporting on what’s happening.
Recognizing bias is indeed important. But every source has some bias. Refusing to engage with biased sources will rule out everything. If you think it doesn’t rule out something, you’ve found your own bias! Good, it’s powerful to know your own bias.
Neutrality is in fact its own bias. Not everything need or should be neutral.
So, check the source. Eff? OK you know or can readily discover they are going to have a bias toward protecting individuals online. Read the piece knowing that and you can get valuable information from it.
If you like, you can reference the information with attribution, Eg “the Eff says…” to avoid taking on their own bias as your own.
It’s the EFF. They’re not neutral. They advocate for stuff - that’s their whole thing.