this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2026
420 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
88592 readers
3037 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s alleged until the appeals stop, then it’s the final verdict
It's generally accepted that a jury verdict is final at the moment it's accepted by the trial court. So no "alleged" is needed. It's not technically wrong to use it as a descriptive choice, since it's now both factually established and still alleged, but it's misleadingly tentative and not required.
It's only alleged until the verdict drops. Whether or not they appeal, they are currently found guilty of the crime, ergo, not "alleged".
Apple is convicted of but alleges otherwise isn't that difficult.
I believe the issue comes down to not needing to later retract things to change the statement, like yeah I know Apple was convicted of this and currently is “convicted” but if they appeal and win and in 5 years the article says “Apple convicted of X, must pay Y” you’d necessarily need a follow up article to correct it OR a retraction or whatever later.
Anyways. I bet that’s the reason, even if I agree that what you said should be the way it’s reported as it is currently the most accurate
So just more gutless journalism focused on appeasing corporate interest rather than reporting the truth? Shocking
No that’s a pretty solid twist of my words
I mean it’s exactly what you’ve said. They hem and haw and refuse to report news that could warrant a future retraction—which, by the way, is a stupid take, as news is temporal and current and what they’re reporting currently is in the interest of some unknown future verdict rather than the one before us now. So, given that they choose to report whatever is most favorable for future corporate interest despite damning current events, I have to conclude that it’s because journalists are prevented from doing their actual jobs by media conglomerates who will always side with capital. How does that twist your words exactly?
You infer malice, by twisting my words, which I’m not doing.
Sometimes bad things happen for reasons that aren’t malicious, understanding that will help.
The same can be said about any crime though, right? If you're found guilty of murder, they drop the alleged and you're just a murder. If you successfully appeal, then the title is dropped.