If we carefully parse this, and suspend any usual assumption of good faith, this actually seems much worse: > But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook

If we carefully parse this, and suspend any usual assumption of good faith, this actually seems much worse: > But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook first to use a partner’s messaging feature. This does not say you had to "explicitly sign in first for Spotify to get access". It says you had to sign in to use the feature enabled by Spotify already having access. > After signing in to your Facebook account in Spotify’s desktop app, you could then send and receive messages without ever leaving the app. This says exactly the same, only using the Spotify example. It again dodges the question when data sharing started. I hold the idea of assuming good faith in the highest regard. But a statement as important as this must have gone through several layers of lawyers with the finest combs available, right? To then so artfully miss answering the actual question... It would be quite a coincidence. If indeed it is deliberate, OP of this thread falling for this artfully crafted admission of guilt should actually command some respect for the craftsmanship of their PR people, in a certain, ethically-challenged light. Although people ignorantly finding fault with everything the Times does may just be an easy mark for PR wordsmiths. Edit: After perusing OP rock_hard’s history, I will have to once again break “assumption of good faith”, sorry. Almost literally all their posts are defending Facebook, or making accusations against Apple, Google, or the New York Times. I’ve often seen responsible disclosures of self-interest by, among others, people working at Google here. This is the first time I’ve seen a pattern this suggestive of the opposite.