I don't know where you're getting that from. I didn't mention asking who should get the right of way.
Have you not just rephrased my "right" and "wrong" as "how things should play out". I'm not sure why someone would do that.
Have you not just rephrased my "right" and "wrong" as "how things should play out". I'm not sure why someone would do that.
I think I was responding to the idea that because the government was acting in self-serving ways, that we were necessarily cheering on Facebook, and that what facebook is doing is "standing up to...corruption", when their own efforts are a corruption of a different kind. The phrasing there made me feel like I was being made to choose--that I was either cheering for facebook or for their rivals in this situation--and I didn't feel that that choice was accurate. It's possible to think that both parties are in the wrong, even if they are on opposite sides here.
Your follow up post reinforced that feeling as it maintained the idea that one party or the other was in the right, but that post was also a direct response to what I said, and not necessarily a continuation of what you had posted earlier. So by continuing that thread I reinforced my own misinterpretation.
I will try to better understand my own reactions to people's posts in the future, and be better in responding in the appropriate context, not with a shift.
Just because right and wrong can imply the word "should" in a hypergeneric sense doesn't mean I was talking about right of way.