> But the fact that a company can do this to another company at the flick of a switch by changing the rules of the game on a whim is still kind of scary, even i

> But the fact that a company can do this to another company at the flick of a switch by changing the rules of the game on a whim is still kind of scary, even if I think it's for the better in this instance. You've got it back to front. If one company is $10b dependent upon another company not having the option to disable privacy invasion, then that company has chosen to build their castle in a swamp. It deserves to sink by $10b.