Hacker News Reader

Surely the simplest explanation would be that no one has found out because they don't actually collect the data.

Is that really the simplest explanation?

Or is the simplest explanation that they're not lying and they do what they say they do?

That’s a pretty wild misapplication of Mr. Occams blade, I’d think. There are much simpler explanations than that.

A certain philosopher named Occam would suggest that appeals to conspiracy are much harder to substantiate than appeals to incompetence or irresponsibility.

That's Hanlon. He has a "razor" that says that anyone who maintains plausible deniability should be assumed to be innocently blundering, no matter how much that blunder benefited them.

"For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture."

So I guess you're going with interpreting the scripture as "render unto Caesar that [data] which belongs to Caesar"?

I'm interested in the thought process that made you conclude that that is the simplest explanation