>giants like Meta, Google, and Apple must collect as much of your personal data as possible
Stopped reading there. If someone tries to sell a lie like that in their first five sentences, I can't trust anything they say.
Stopped reading there. If someone tries to sell a lie like that in their first five sentences, I can't trust anything they say.
Apple does collect some of your data, but their business doesn't depend on it, and I have some degree of control over how much I participate.
I think it's a category error to include all three in the same sentence, but I don't think the author is lying. I do agree somewhat with the sentiment that such a lack of distinction calls the content into question, or at least the author's framing of it.
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.
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.