* "Kids who grew up with search engines could change STEM education forever" - Now ask yourself -- is this a "news" peice? Is it journalism, or is it opinion?
* "Apple won’t let Fortnite back on iOS until the Epic v. Apple verdict is final" -- What the hell is this? Isn't it normal that verdicts take effect when they are final? What exactly is the story here? There is no story, there is outrage commentary.
Then we have intermixed with the above opinion pieces various P.R. stories and product reviews, none of them labelled as advertisements, all mixing PR with what was traditionally the role of a reviewer:
* "Microsoft’s fall Surface event: the 7 biggest announcements"
* "MICROSOFT SURFACE LAPTOP STUDIO HANDS-ON: ONE WEIRD, POWERFUL COMPUTER"
* "How to preorder all of the new Surface hardware"
* "The Surface Go 3 gets new Intel processors"
* "Microsoft announces Surface Pro 8 with bigger 13-inch 120Hz display and Thunderbolt"
* "Microsoft’s new mouse has a shell that’s 20 percent recycled ocean plastic"
* "How to watch Microsoft’s Surface event today"
* "Gitamini is a cute, compact, cargo-carrying robot that will follow you around like a dog"
* "HP’s new 11-inch tablet has a flipping webcam"
Whatever this is, it's not journalism.
And I have no idea how much effort it would take to find such a lawsuit amidst the huge shuffle of papers that must be the Delaware Chancery.
If someone sues Facebook and does the media circuit, advertises the fact, and gets their face out there, and the case just isn't likely to succeed on the merits, that's one thing. If someone sues Facebook, gets to discovery, survives motions to dismiss and "doesn't tell a soul" (though public will find out from court records) that meets my definition of doing it "quietly."
But I also don't understand it. You can't "quietly" enforce a policy against every kid in the school, especially if you expect them to come to school with masks in hand ahead of time. And the uproar started after a widely advertised meeting that was broadcast online and that had solicited public comment. There was nothing quiet about it.
I think it's just a cheap tactic used to convey a lack of trust.
On the face of it, it's bizarre that an innocent word like "quietly" has come to have irritating connotations of clickbait for so many. But thousands of people are having meetings every day to discuss how best to grab our attention by any means necessary, and this is the result.
For comparison's sake, it's extremely common for those who file lawsuits of this type and magnitude to announce that they are doing it. These plaintiffs did not and that's a relevant detail in the narrative.
https://rfob.medium.com/exclusive-facebook-executives-sued-o...
> As to how this suit wasn't noticed, Delaware Chancery charges a fortune per document limiting public awareness
This isn't to say it was intentionally quietly added, just that it wasn't noticed as easily as some others given the quantity of documents required to pay 200+ iirc
Could you give other examples?
Quietly makes sense to me - the parties sought no publicity (if I understand correctly).
I don't think it ever has anything to do with the media being informed "in advance".
But this isn't a journalist. Or a news publication. The closest the author ever came was working for a sports outlet a long time ago.