It’s not deceitful, but it’s still not worth much as a graph. 1. We think in terms of fractions. What fraction of users have left? It can be calculated from th

It’s not deceitful, but it’s still not worth much as a graph. 1. We think in terms of fractions. What fraction of users have left? It can be calculated from the numbers, but you don’t need a graph for that. If you started the axis at 0, it wouldn’t need calculated — it could be seen. 2. Not showing longer history makes it impossible to answer questions like, “how does the current rate of loss of users compare to the rate of growth a month earlier?” Your attempted point about “emphasizing how rapid the decline is” is, to be blunt, the stupidest thing I read today. How does showing less data, less clearly, help anyone? Clearly, showing more history would give an accurate picture of “how rapid” the decline is or isn’t — again, see point #2 above. Last point. As a thought exercise, consider a graph that goes up rapidly, then reaches an inflection point after which it slowly, steadily goes down — by no more than a total 1% over its run. It would look mostly flat after the inflection point, as part of the whole, complete graph. But zoom in, so the axes only contain points in that slow, mild down slope, and it looks like a dramatic slide from “a lot” to “nothing at all,” right? Not very helpful.