3 ms·
That's still ironical. if their claims are valid or not is absolutely unrelated to the irony of that situation though. Did anyone imply that if the content is
by Xelbair 7y ago
That's still ironical.
if their claims are valid or not is absolutely unrelated to the irony of that situation though.
Did anyone imply that if the content is 'ironical' we shouldn't write it or discuss it?
- mosselman 7y agoIt isn't ironic just because they also have a privacy policy. It has to be unreadable to come close to irony. Lets say that I own a burger restaurant and I tell you that burgers at McDonalds are crap. Would that be ironic? Because that is what you are saying. > Did anyone imply that if the content is 'ironical' we shouldn't write it or discuss it? I interpret the original comment: > Ironic. as a means to discrediting the journalist. You are right though and instead of "Are they suddenly not allowed to write about privacy issues?" I should have written something along the lines of "Is it suddenly not credible for them to write about privacy issues?"