4 ms·

> their assertion otherwise is nothing but semantics Given that what counts as "invasive" is a semantic question, I'm not what you're trying to say here. You s

> their assertion otherwise is nothing but semantics Given that what counts as "invasive" is a semantic question, I'm not what you're trying to say here. You seem to be using this as a dismissal, without any justification. They didn't ignore the fact that the web is paid for by ads. They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay.

BookmarkSaver 10y ago
>They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay Totally reasonable. But the fact that they don't seem capable of even beginning to suggest alternatives makes what they are saying completely useless. It would be like saying "we need to solve global warming, so we need to end all coal mining and oil drilling". Ok... but you can't just do that. You have to have alternatives and a plan to transition a society utterly dependent on fossil fuels onto something else. We do have some answers to those questions, and any useful attempt to address climate change will go over that. This is just saying "turn off the pumps, and it will work itself out" without even attempting to explain what is supposed to come next. It is pure whining, not anything more.
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  Or, it's saying "turn off the pumps, and if it doesn't work itself out, that'll be okay."
BookmarkSaver 10y ago
And I was using this as a dismissal because the only part of the statement that they actually addressed was the unimportant semantic part. Not the core issue that was being raised. The quote would be just as valid without the parenthetical "(non-invasive)" and if it wasn't there, how would they respond? What they did is sort of like correcting a grammar mistake that their interlocutor made, but ignoring the actual argument. It is a sham deflection, not a response. Their argument holds no water until the issue is addressed.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  I interpret the parenthetical as meaning the feedback they received sometimes contained the "non invasive" precision and other times it didn't and they're addressing both at once. So my guess they would respond the same and you already their response. To be brutally honest it is your point that I don't understand. What is the core issue being raised that wasn't addressed and why would it matter so much that it invalidate the whole thing.
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  I disagree. The entire point of the post is that it challenges a background assumption that most people don't even realize they're making. You might find the question of business models to be more of interest, but if the feedback they need to respond to shows a lack of awareness that an invasion is even taking place, they need to establish that fact before anything else about the issue could be fruitfully discussed!

BookmarkSaver 10y ago

>They stated that they expect other models would come about, and that in any case, ads aren't an acceptable price to pay Totally reasonable. But the fact that they don't seem capable of even beginning to suggest alternatives makes what they are saying completely useless. It would be like saying "we need to solve global warming, so we need to end all coal mining and oil drilling". Ok... but you can't just do that. You have to have alternatives and a plan to transition a society utterly dependent on fossil fuels onto something else. We do have some answers to those questions, and any useful attempt to address climate change will go over that. This is just saying "turn off the pumps, and it will work itself out" without even attempting to explain what is supposed to come next. It is pure whining, not anything more.

GavinMcG 10y ago
Or, it's saying "turn off the pumps, and if it doesn't work itself out, that'll be okay."

BookmarkSaver 10y ago

And I was using this as a dismissal because the only part of the statement that they actually addressed was the unimportant semantic part. Not the core issue that was being raised. The quote would be just as valid without the parenthetical "(non-invasive)" and if it wasn't there, how would they respond? What they did is sort of like correcting a grammar mistake that their interlocutor made, but ignoring the actual argument. It is a sham deflection, not a response. Their argument holds no water until the issue is addressed.

bigbugbag 10y ago
I interpret the parenthetical as meaning the feedback they received sometimes contained the "non invasive" precision and other times it didn't and they're addressing both at once. So my guess they would respond the same and you already their response. To be brutally honest it is your point that I don't understand. What is the core issue being raised that wasn't addressed and why would it matter so much that it invalidate the whole thing.
GavinMcG 10y ago
I disagree. The entire point of the post is that it challenges a background assumption that most people don't even realize they're making. You might find the question of business models to be more of interest, but if the feedback they need to respond to shows a lack of awareness that an invasion is even taking place, they need to establish that fact before anything else about the issue could be fruitfully discussed!