Comment by forgetfreeman
1 year ago
Disagree. All three companies exist in the set of massively international megacorps who as a matter of routine daily business collect and distribute personal information of the individuals who use their service. Being precious about what percentage of their yearly revenue is generated by this activity seems weird.
> Being precious about what percentage of their yearly revenue is generated by this activity seems weird
No one is being precious about it. They're debating whether or not the article is written in good faith. Jumping to a bad faith-based defence isn't going to change the mind of people who are concerned about things being done in bad faith.
To clarify, you're concerned that one or more arguments advanced in the article don't meet your personal definition of bad faith, bad faith is important to you, and as such the entire article is suspect? Entirely ignoring the central claims of bad faith handling of users sensitive information, we're skipping past that entirely to deconstruct a single sentence as a "gotcha"? One of us does not understand the other, clearly.
Good/bad faith isn't just about one's preference about a form of argument, but can also completely change the validity of the underlying argument.
The point here is that bad faith is doing exactly that: making the legitimacy of the argument presented by the author fundamentally questionable. Comparing the core business model of a company that has invested in capabilities like Advanced Data Protection with Meta in an article highlighting the ways authorities can get your data...seems disingenuous at best, and just plain wrong/misleading.
> we're skipping past that entirely to deconstruct a single sentence as a "gotcha"
When someone sets up a false premise, then yes, everything that comes after it is suspect.