> I appreciate the downvote nonetheless. You're too paranoid. I don't yet even have the ability to downvote people; my rating is too low. > the same fallacy

> I appreciate the downvote nonetheless. You're too paranoid. I don't yet even have the ability to downvote people; my rating is too low. > the same fallacy Gee thanks. We're not just in disagreement, I'm the idiot who can't reason correctly. I think your logic is unreasonable. I already said why; google isn't living up to what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect -- such a person wouldn't expect deletion with no recourse. And if it happened to you, obviously you would change your attitude about what is and is not reasonable; no one wants their stuff deleted. So arguing about it seems possibly disingenuous, regardless of the fine details. > You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect Actively deleting files is included in the definition of "safety"? I think not. However again, my main point isn't whether the above person is correct, it's that his point is reasonable enough that it is uncalled for to say he's arguing a strawman.