this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
480 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

58760 readers
3567 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Apple always have these convenient excuses in their back pockets. Makes much more sense to me that DeNiro was telling the truth, especially given recent events.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Makes much more sense to me that DeNiro was telling the truth

Nobody ever said he was lying. He made a statement, live, based on his current understanding of the situation. Later, someone else offered a perfectly plausible explanation.

[–] long_chicken_boat@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

it's too much of a coincidence that the removed parts were the most controversial ones. that's a pretty weird change for allegedly an "older draft version".

additionally, it's not the first time Apple has removed controversial topics in a short period of time. I might not agree with DeNiro at all, but I'm convinced that those parts of the script were removed purposefully by Apple.

[–] Haha@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It’s not perfectly plausible when it happened earlier lmao keep shilling

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 2 points 10 months ago

What's plausible or reasonable about independently editing someone else's speech and not even bothering to make sure they knew about it?

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The person you were replying to also didn't say he was lying?

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware, but at the moment on stage, it wasn't possible for him to know the truth in the first place so it's not about whether we think De Niro was "telling the truth." He was speculating.

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He made a guess based on the evidence he had. It may or may not be "true" or factual. Either way, he wasn't lying, and the person you responded to didn't say anything about him lying.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

You know, when I wrote it I actually questioned whether I should use the word "lying," or if doing so would cause an overly nit-picking response, but I decided to expect the best in people. Surely they'd see that I was establishing a shared premise that he wasn't lying, which is the usual opposite of "telling the truth," while pointing out that he wasn't necessarily telling the truth. There's a middle ground of ignorance.

But by all means, thank you for interjecting yourself in the conversation to state the obvious.