Comment by codingdave
6 days ago
> This is a company whose business runs on gathering and monetizing personal data
Seems like they covered your points just fine. They just did it succinctly and trusted the reader to understand the broader implications.
They don't trust the reader to 'understand the broader implications' in their other posts. For example:
https://reclaimthenet.org/the-house-just-voted-for-kosa
> If you’ve been following our updates, you’ll know the accountability positioning hides the actual design. The bill defines “know” or “knows” to mean “to know or should have known,” and that phrase runs through sections covering platforms, AI chatbots, and gaming services.
In their recent (two days ago) reporting on KOSA, they dedicate an entire paragraph (see above) specifically to explaining how a word choice is being used to hide the main thrust of the bill, and continue on for some paragraphs detailing how a single disguised and misleading word is the beachhead for an affront to privacy. So their failing to call out Google on this word choice reads as 'lack of familiarity with the terrain', as when on more well-understood ground — since US gov't reporting rather predates the tech industry, after all — they do call out such things.
The article you linked is by a different author. It is completely reasonable for different authors to have different writing styles.
I remain unpersuaded.