To paraphrase an analysis that I read awhile ago, Apple’s practices were found to be legal because Apple applied the rules unilaterally whereas Google would make backroom deals to alter the rules on an app-by-app basis.

Please take this with a grain of salt because 1) IANAL and 2) it is the middle of a workday break and I didn’t take the time to search for a source, just basing this off of memory.

If you want I can research this after work to provide sources and update my comment.

Oh I remember the story quite well. I just read it to my kids. Yes there is the responsibility of the kid to not lie, but it also the responsibility of the town to check it out even if wolf has been called several times before. The sheep feed the town, not just the child. There are multiple morals of the story.

I’ll admit I quickly read through the article and just scanned for key points and followed the linked articles, some of which were no longer valid links. The point I was trying to make was not in the defense of Vogue themselves but in the defense of news outlets that are often ignored.

I appreciate you reading the article and providing your insight into the author’s bias. I did not wish to start an argument and I apologize if I offended.

The article seems to summarize events concisely and provides links to outside references. We really shouldn’t turn our nose up to any outlet trying to share information. Even if an outlet tends to be sensationalist we should pay attention to each article as they may be breaking a story, provide more research paths, or give an insight from a point of view we miss.

With that being said I know nothing of Vogue, TeenVogue, or the author. However you never know when someone cries “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.