4 ms·
That's ad hominem. The documents should be looked at in their own merit. This isn't some phrase that can be taken out of context, it's a bunch of formal documen
by computerex 7y ago
That's ad hominem. The documents should be looked at in their own merit. This isn't some phrase that can be taken out of context, it's a bunch of formal documents that can be looked at to establish a line of facts related to FB's conduct.
- bawolff 7y agoIts not an ad hominem. Its only an ad hominem if someone makes an unrelated personal attack against the source of an argument. The original argument was that these documents are suggestive of facebook corporate culture/evilness. A counter argument that the documents are cherry-picked by someone with a grudge (which may or may not be true) directly responds to the original claim that you can gleam a fair picture of facebook based on these documents. Thus it is not an ad hominem (that's not to say that it is necessarily a good argument)
- edmundsauto 7y agoI think the previous posters point is to consider what is contained in all the other documents created by facebook that weren't leaked. Potentially impossible in practice, but worth considering what could be in those documents that would change your position.