Right. I read it as merely an argument again “this thing Google did to be evil.” It’s more complicated than that and there’s no way to discuss things if someon

Right. I read it as merely an argument again “this thing Google did to be evil.” It’s more complicated than that and there’s no way to discuss things if someone takes that stance. The article wasn’t trying to convince you the changes was good or bad. People can do what they see as the right thing (limiting plugins) for the right reason (they had WAY too much access to data), and despite no evil being intended or agenda to protect the ad business existing, people come to that conclusion. This facts are just all more complicated than the common talking points you see. That’s it seems to be trying to show.