What you seem to be missing is that the article did not have any actual source for its claims, it's just reporting an answer from an AI. What the article says i

What you seem to be missing is that the article did not have any actual source for its claims, it's just reporting an answer from an AI. What the article says is irrelevant, because all of it has been made up. Your new link is even worse. It just quotes from this article, but conveniently omits the part about the original source being a chatbot. It's quite amazing how gullible some people are. I can kind of understand HN commenters reading the headline, believing it, and commenting without reading the article. But this is somebody whose self-identity is so tied to online privacy issues that their handle is "thatprivacyguy", and they're literally filing official complaints with no fact checking despite obvious red flags, and wasting precious DPC resources on AI-generated slop.