I’m talking to someone in a privacy forum hosted outside of corporate social media who described reports about privacy violations committed by a privacy-invasive social media app as pearl-clutching and fearmongering.
I’m not sure what your deal is, here, but I’m not into it. I feel like what I said was pretty straightforward and you’re determined to gin up some kind of disagreement, where I’m supposed to say that corporate media’s reporting on privacy isn’t bad, or something.
Privacy good, corporate privacy invasion bad. Corporate media underreporting of privacy violations bad. Hopefully that makes sense, and we can agree on it. I’m not into whatever argument you’re attempting to create about it.
Privacy good, corporate privacy invasion bad. Corporate media underreporting of privacy violations bad.
We never had an argument other than you keep positing that people don’t agree with this while they’re busy explaining to you that yes, they actually do, and you keep choosing to ignore that. “Corporate media underreporting of privacy violations bad” is literally what I spent several paragraphs explaining that you took as “yelling” and “disagreement.”
…but keep on arguing with people who actually agree with you and telling yourself they don’t.
Got it. Yeah, fair enough. What I was aiming to do, more or less, was ask for clarification, but I definitely see how it could come across as me trying to continue the argument when he was saying that he already agreed with me. I think you hopping into it with a big italic and bold wall of text on the thing that apparently all three of us already agree on only confused the issue further.
Anyway, sounds like we’re all on the same page. Cool.
I’m talking to someone in a privacy forum hosted outside of corporate social media who described reports about privacy violations committed by a privacy-invasive social media app as pearl-clutching and fearmongering.
I’m not sure what your deal is, here, but I’m not into it. I feel like what I said was pretty straightforward and you’re determined to gin up some kind of disagreement, where I’m supposed to say that corporate media’s reporting on privacy isn’t bad, or something.
Privacy good, corporate privacy invasion bad. Corporate media underreporting of privacy violations bad. Hopefully that makes sense, and we can agree on it. I’m not into whatever argument you’re attempting to create about it.
We never had an argument other than you keep positing that people don’t agree with this while they’re busy explaining to you that yes, they actually do, and you keep choosing to ignore that. “Corporate media underreporting of privacy violations bad” is literally what I spent several paragraphs explaining that you took as “yelling” and “disagreement.”
…but keep on arguing with people who actually agree with you and telling yourself they don’t.
or maybe just learn to fucking read.
Got it. Yeah, fair enough. What I was aiming to do, more or less, was ask for clarification, but I definitely see how it could come across as me trying to continue the argument when he was saying that he already agreed with me. I think you hopping into it with a big italic and bold wall of text on the thing that apparently all three of us already agree on only confused the issue further.
Anyway, sounds like we’re all on the same page. Cool.
Fair enough, sorry to be confusing to you.