> There were non-panicky comments about whether it's a legally significant move, whether it's a wedge change, whether it's abusable by governments in other ways

> There were non-panicky comments about whether it's a legally significant move, whether it's a wedge change, whether it's abusable by governments in other ways, etc. the panicky ones were not those That’s what I find most frustrating about the reaction to this. This was a sophisticated, privacy-preserving process that represented a genuine step forward in the state of the art and there was an interesting argument to be had about whether it struck the right balance. But it was impossible to have that argument because it was drowned out by an overwhelming amount of nonsense from people guessing incorrectly about how it worked and then getting angry about their fantasies.