Comment by buran77

It was a statement that you're muddying the waters without implying whether bad faith or just a weak argument. And it was followed by the reasoning: that on a topic where the arguments against pervasive surveillance can be considered obvious, you aren't even hinting at an argument why anyone should not be against this in your dissenting opinion. Just an appeal to authority, "I am super experienced and say it's fine".

After repeated requests also from others you're still just waltzing around this, pretending you're not answering because you didn't get the question worded the right way.

If you think that's what good faith looks like I've got news for you.