>You said they have constant breaches, then immediately recanted when asked for details
No, I didn't, go back and read again
>Your argument which got no reply was an idealogical argument which appears to be constructed to shut down debate
It wasn't meant to shut down debate. If he wants to argue the ethics of spying on people and using psychological tactics for financial gain I'd be more than happy to discuss
>You even threw out the casual line about them not having poor security and breaches, invalidating your argument in the post they replied to
Again, no I didn't. I never said google had poor security or breaches, and I clearly stated that was just a generic example I used which brings attention to the wrong things, as demonstrated by you focusing on "breaches" rather than the point I was really trying to make and elucidated in my reply.
>In other words, they seemingly care about whether the technical argument has merits. Once it's clear that there's no technical substance and it moves on to your personal crusade against modern companies, people lose interest.
That's the entire point, and why I regretted saying "breaches". You are focusing 100% on the wrong thing. The problem that I have is not a technical argument about whether or not breaches could occur
No, I didn't, go back and read again
>Your argument which got no reply was an idealogical argument which appears to be constructed to shut down debate
It wasn't meant to shut down debate. If he wants to argue the ethics of spying on people and using psychological tactics for financial gain I'd be more than happy to discuss
>You even threw out the casual line about them not having poor security and breaches, invalidating your argument in the post they replied to
Again, no I didn't. I never said google had poor security or breaches, and I clearly stated that was just a generic example I used which brings attention to the wrong things, as demonstrated by you focusing on "breaches" rather than the point I was really trying to make and elucidated in my reply.
>In other words, they seemingly care about whether the technical argument has merits. Once it's clear that there's no technical substance and it moves on to your personal crusade against modern companies, people lose interest.
That's the entire point, and why I regretted saying "breaches". You are focusing 100% on the wrong thing. The problem that I have is not a technical argument about whether or not breaches could occur