I believe that that’s an inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of the comment you’re responding to. If the linked article contained anything other than

I believe that that’s an inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of the comment you’re responding to. If the linked article contained anything other than a brief offhand remark by Lagarde (as quoted by the OP), it would be reasonable to address her argument in greater depth. As it is, the sole reason this is even being discussed is due to the authority she wields. It is therefore reasonable to address that authority instead. The OP posits that a person whose authority is potentially threatened by a technology might not necessarily be an impartial judge of said technology. You might agree or disagree, but you’re not really responding to the argument. And you’re the only one bringing up conspiracy theories.