Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.privacy    |    Discussing privacy, laws, tinfoil hats    |    112,125 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 110,452 of 112,125    |
|    Andrew to Chris    |
|    Re: Apple accused of underreporting susp    |
|    29 Jul 24 11:23:48    |
      XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone       From: andrew@spam.net              Chris wrote on Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:50:53 -0000 (UTC) :              >> You not comprehending the difference between zero percent of Apple reports       >> versus zero total convictions is how I know you zealots own subnormal IQs.       >       > Not at all. My position hasn't changed. You, however, have had about three       > different positions on this thread and keep getting confused which one       > you're arguing for. lol.              Au contraire              Because I only think logically, my rather sensible position has never       changed, Chris, and the fact you "think" it has changed is simply that you       don't know the difference between the percentage of convictions based on       the number of reports, and the total number of convictions.              When you figure out that those two things are different, then (and only       then) will you realize I've maintained the same position throughout.              Specifically....              a. If the Apple reporting rate is low, and yet if their conviction        rate is high (based on the number of reports), then they are NOT        underreporting images.              b. If the FB/Google reporting rate is high, and yet if their conviction        rate is low (based on the number of reports), then they are        overreporting images.              c. None of us know if either is true unless and until we know the        conviction rates per Apple, Facebook, & Google - which are not        in the reports (which were aimed to lambaste Apple).              d. That conviction rate information is so important, that nobody        is so stupid to not ASK for it BEFORE making any assessments.              e. Given the people who wrote those reports are not likely to be        stupid, the fact they left out the most important factor,        directly implies the obvious, based on the omission itself.              Now what do you think that omitted fact directly implies, Chris?              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca