> Most people have multiple screens of apps, with rather haphazard organization as to which appear on which and in what order.
This is your assumption It is possible that poster of the tweet assumes the opposite - frequently used apps would be on the home screen. Is there any reason one assumption is fairer than the other? I ask because I have all my frequently used apps on my home screen with the most frequently used ones on the dock.
If you look up the context, here's what Linda Yaccarino was saying at Code 2023 interview when she held up her phone (starting at 13:53 on the video titled 'Linda Yaccarino defends Elon Musk, X, and herself at Code 2023 ' on The Verge's channel; text obtained from the transcript and proof-read):
> So, 90% of the top 100 advertisers have returned to the platform. In the last 12 weeks alone, about 1500 have returned. So, whether it is small business, or big brands, right? Like AT&T, VISA, Nissan, all returning. Why are they returning? They are returning because of the power and significance of the platform, the place that X has in this world. Why? ... One of the reasons that I'm in the chair I'm in today, and in the chair I am at X, leading the company, is because I knew for the last decade, and you knew this, part of my old remit was to oversee not only the advertising revenue for the company, but to look after all of our enterprise relationships. Our, I still say "our," the, all of the NBC enterprise relationships. And, Twitter was one of them. I specifically use the name Twitter, by the way, purposefully. And, that's when, for 10 years, and how, I fell in love with the platform, because I knew, first of all, we all knew the trajectory of where broadcast cable television, and usage, and consumption was growing, going. But, THIS (emphasis mine) powered by, now, X was the only mechanism that could take the premium content business, live global events, news. When you, when I used to sit in my office and watch you on television, it was the only thing that could put you live, in culture, where it happens, in the moment.
She held up her phone when she said "THIS" and from the context, she was referring to mobile in contrast to broadcast media while also stating that X was part of THIS. One could assume that the tweet was making the point that if X was a major part of THIS, why wasn't it on the home screen?
Lost as to the point you're trying to make tbh. I have dozens of apps I use every day. All are split between my home screens. Their placement on one screen or another is not indicative of how often I use each one. People order by colors, by groupings, or just in the order in which they were installed et . The onus is on a journalist to make a point backed by the reasonable interpretation of evidence. "Well her X app was, so far as we can tell, on one home screen on not the other" is not reasonable evidence for meaningful journalistic criticism.
> Their placement on one screen or another is not indicative of how often I use each one.
If I am not mistaken, the point that you are trying to make is that if someone takes the time to arrange apps on their home screen, it is highly likely that those are the apps they use a lot. However, not everyone does this. I agree. Would it have been acceptable to you if the journalist had qualified their point? Say, "Assuming it is usual for people to keep their most used apps on the (first page of the) home screen or on the dock, it seems that Linda doesn't use X frequently." I feel that this assumption was implicit. Yes, one can disagree with the assumption but based on the assumption, the point made was valid. Is it "meaningful journalistic criticism"? Maybe not. Still valid though based on their (incorrect) assumption.
Making a strongly negative accusation *wholly* on a bad faith assumption about how people use their phones is bad journalism yes. This isn't an assumption like "people usually type with their thumbs". There's no default for this. I know people with 5+ screens of apps and no folders. I know people who color coordinate them. I know people who only use Siri to open apps. I've seen people with the Settings app in their dock. People are eclectic in ways we can't imagine.
PS - Please do not edit comments in a thread after the fact without being clear about what you've edited. It's unfair to readers.
You may have a point here. On reading your reply, I asked myself is it not possible that it genuinely did not occur to the tweeter that not all people arrange their apps. (I arrange my apps and up until this post, it did not even occur to me to ask whether others did it too.) I was reminded of the "last question" posed by the judge in 'David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt' (See the chapter 'The Final Scene' in 'Denial: Holocaust History on Trial') I then reasoned that the 'bad faith' comes from not identifying the underlying assumption and making an effort to challenge it. At the very least, one could have stated the assumption explicitly, I suppose. It is reasoning from conclusions. One has already assumed certain things about Linda. One then reasons backwards from it.
PS: I didn't realise that Substack doesn't have edit history. This is my first time commenting on Substack. The edits were minor. Added "emphasis mine" after "THIS" as the word is not capitalised in the original transcript. Had to capitalise since Substack provides no method to make text bold. I also added quotes to 'THIS' in the last paragraph to indicate that I was referring to the capitalised word. Neither of these changes take away or add anything whatsoever. If they had not been so (and I had known there was no edit history), I would have mentioned them.
> While this was unsourced and I had to google it ...
Isn't the video of the interview considered a source? The video was uploaded on Sept 29, 2023. The Verge's article on the interview was also posted on the same day. The tweet that you refer to was also posted on the same day. Is an explicit mention of the source in the notes necessary?
> Most people have multiple screens of apps, with rather haphazard organization as to which appear on which and in what order.
This is your assumption It is possible that poster of the tweet assumes the opposite - frequently used apps would be on the home screen. Is there any reason one assumption is fairer than the other? I ask because I have all my frequently used apps on my home screen with the most frequently used ones on the dock.
If you look up the context, here's what Linda Yaccarino was saying at Code 2023 interview when she held up her phone (starting at 13:53 on the video titled 'Linda Yaccarino defends Elon Musk, X, and herself at Code 2023 ' on The Verge's channel; text obtained from the transcript and proof-read):
> So, 90% of the top 100 advertisers have returned to the platform. In the last 12 weeks alone, about 1500 have returned. So, whether it is small business, or big brands, right? Like AT&T, VISA, Nissan, all returning. Why are they returning? They are returning because of the power and significance of the platform, the place that X has in this world. Why? ... One of the reasons that I'm in the chair I'm in today, and in the chair I am at X, leading the company, is because I knew for the last decade, and you knew this, part of my old remit was to oversee not only the advertising revenue for the company, but to look after all of our enterprise relationships. Our, I still say "our," the, all of the NBC enterprise relationships. And, Twitter was one of them. I specifically use the name Twitter, by the way, purposefully. And, that's when, for 10 years, and how, I fell in love with the platform, because I knew, first of all, we all knew the trajectory of where broadcast cable television, and usage, and consumption was growing, going. But, THIS (emphasis mine) powered by, now, X was the only mechanism that could take the premium content business, live global events, news. When you, when I used to sit in my office and watch you on television, it was the only thing that could put you live, in culture, where it happens, in the moment.
She held up her phone when she said "THIS" and from the context, she was referring to mobile in contrast to broadcast media while also stating that X was part of THIS. One could assume that the tweet was making the point that if X was a major part of THIS, why wasn't it on the home screen?
Lost as to the point you're trying to make tbh. I have dozens of apps I use every day. All are split between my home screens. Their placement on one screen or another is not indicative of how often I use each one. People order by colors, by groupings, or just in the order in which they were installed et . The onus is on a journalist to make a point backed by the reasonable interpretation of evidence. "Well her X app was, so far as we can tell, on one home screen on not the other" is not reasonable evidence for meaningful journalistic criticism.
> Their placement on one screen or another is not indicative of how often I use each one.
If I am not mistaken, the point that you are trying to make is that if someone takes the time to arrange apps on their home screen, it is highly likely that those are the apps they use a lot. However, not everyone does this. I agree. Would it have been acceptable to you if the journalist had qualified their point? Say, "Assuming it is usual for people to keep their most used apps on the (first page of the) home screen or on the dock, it seems that Linda doesn't use X frequently." I feel that this assumption was implicit. Yes, one can disagree with the assumption but based on the assumption, the point made was valid. Is it "meaningful journalistic criticism"? Maybe not. Still valid though based on their (incorrect) assumption.
Making a strongly negative accusation *wholly* on a bad faith assumption about how people use their phones is bad journalism yes. This isn't an assumption like "people usually type with their thumbs". There's no default for this. I know people with 5+ screens of apps and no folders. I know people who color coordinate them. I know people who only use Siri to open apps. I've seen people with the Settings app in their dock. People are eclectic in ways we can't imagine.
PS - Please do not edit comments in a thread after the fact without being clear about what you've edited. It's unfair to readers.
> bad faith assumption
You may have a point here. On reading your reply, I asked myself is it not possible that it genuinely did not occur to the tweeter that not all people arrange their apps. (I arrange my apps and up until this post, it did not even occur to me to ask whether others did it too.) I was reminded of the "last question" posed by the judge in 'David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt' (See the chapter 'The Final Scene' in 'Denial: Holocaust History on Trial') I then reasoned that the 'bad faith' comes from not identifying the underlying assumption and making an effort to challenge it. At the very least, one could have stated the assumption explicitly, I suppose. It is reasoning from conclusions. One has already assumed certain things about Linda. One then reasons backwards from it.
PS: I didn't realise that Substack doesn't have edit history. This is my first time commenting on Substack. The edits were minor. Added "emphasis mine" after "THIS" as the word is not capitalised in the original transcript. Had to capitalise since Substack provides no method to make text bold. I also added quotes to 'THIS' in the last paragraph to indicate that I was referring to the capitalised word. Neither of these changes take away or add anything whatsoever. If they had not been so (and I had known there was no edit history), I would have mentioned them.
> While this was unsourced and I had to google it ...
Isn't the video of the interview considered a source? The video was uploaded on Sept 29, 2023. The Verge's article on the interview was also posted on the same day. The tweet that you refer to was also posted on the same day. Is an explicit mention of the source in the notes necessary?
There was no direction in the book to any of these things. It was entirely unsourced.