3 ms·
This is where the confusion lies: > Saying Google paid a fine is a fact My point has been that Google believing they have consent for tracking usage of Bard i
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
This is where the confusion lies:
> Saying Google paid a fine is a fact
My point has been that Google believing they have consent for tracking usage of Bard is “valid”. Pointing to the fact that Google paid a fine to a particular legal authority as a reason for understanding that this consent is “not valid” is the appeal to authority.
(Please also consider that you have “shifted the goalposts”.)
Edit: I should apologize for the above parenthetical about shifting the goalposts. In retrospect this appears more as a regular misunderstanding. I should have tried to clarify earlier. It’s not an excuse but an explanation: I believe I was simply frustrated by the misunderstanding. I am sorry for that accusation.
- nr2x 4y agoIt’s cool dude, no worries.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI’m reminded of being asked as a young child what I want to be when I grow up. No joke, I’d often say something like “I wanna be a lawyer because I like to argue.” Examining it as an adult I recognize that I just enjoy navigating the logic of various arguments. Kind of a stereotypical philosopher; really, young me just didn’t know “philosopher” was a thing. Way more applicable. I appreciate your understanding!
- nr2x 4y agoI’m a hacker at heart who exclusively works with lawyers on highly specific technical data protection issues, so yeah, same. :-)