You reframed the researcher's report that every time they put on a headset, children were being sexually harrased by adults as "Violating laws that say you can'

You reframed the researcher's report that every time they put on a headset, children were being sexually harrased by adults as "Violating laws that say you can't collect data on children is okay to do." -- that one will be clearest to on-lookers, and the other two are just as addled. I genuinely hope it's out of: a lack of understanding of legal terms, ethics, and how to read critically. And that it is not trolling. It's quite stultifying to read as someone who does have those understandings. It reads as lying at best and trolling at worst, but my red-line is assigning motivation. Which is a shame, because the article is a good example of what happens when you're cowardly and pretend "reacting to what it is" is "assigning motivation": inter alia, a 17 strike sex trafficker policy, signed off by corporate.