2 ms·
What are you basing this assumption on? The funny thing is, no matter how I reply to your comment I lose by default. If I say I have - you say I'm lying. If I
by ziddoap 7y ago
What are you basing this assumption on?
The funny thing is, no matter how I reply to your comment I lose by default. If I say I have - you say I'm lying. If I say I haven't, your point is proven. What option do I have?
Perhaps you'd like to chime in on the discussion at hand rather than speculating on my personal life.
- lcao 7y agoYou have the option of not making stupid comments defending the indefensible.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lcao 7y agoNo need to attack your comment, only in Hacker News, the jerkers of the failed Mozilla Corporation, you'd read a comment as stupid as yours at the top. And all because they hate Google. "Yeah it's true the Mozilla Corporation is terribly mismanaged and has a story of stabbing you at the back. But just trust them again! They won't do it again. For sure."
- dmos62 7y agoKiro does have a point. Not you personally, but in general the popular opinion is that Google is morally bad, while Mozilla is good. I think it would currently be very unpopular to say that Google just made some bad decisions, as in it's not actually "bad", because it would muddy the one-dimensional good-bad discourse to which most of these mainstream problems descend to. Note I'm not actually passing judgements, just talking about group think.
- ziddoap 7y agoI concede that this is a valid outlook (which I did not gather from Kiro's comment, so thanks for clarifying). I tried to word my comment in a way that made it clear that I believe this mentality should apply to _all_ companies, including Google, when a company makes a move in the direction of benefiting consumer privacy. I perhaps could have made that more clear in my original comment.