> That's exactly the way sharing worked for many years, until Ventura. I don’t mean that the burden of proof is to show that they could or even should work the

> That's exactly the way sharing worked for many years, until Ventura. I don’t mean that the burden of proof is to show that they could or even should work the same way. I mean the burden of proof is to demonstrate the same principle applies to copying a link as applies to sharing it. > And when you talk about another "recipient", it's important to clarify that sharing is between apps on your own system. Sharing between people may or may not occur as a result of that, which is another reason why I liken it to copy and paste. This is a fair point! Particularly because the “share” functionality is overloaded for things which it conceptually shouldn’t be. > The point is that privacy is the default. It doesn't need to be justified. As Apple says repeatedly and vehemently, "We believe privacy is a fundamental human right." I’m still not sure why you’re pointing this out to me here. I was never arguing that this warrants an exception to privacy, by default or otherwise. I was questioning the applicability of privacy to the functionality in question. You’ve given me some reason to reconsider that. Not on the basis that I’ve reevaluated the value of privacy per se, but on the basis that I do better see how it might apply in this case.