I can appreciate conciseness. And I agree that you were being concise. I also agree that I am focusing on the connotations of the words you used. That's the thi

I can appreciate conciseness. And I agree that you were being concise. I also agree that I am focusing on the connotations of the words you used. That's the thing about FUD: usually the words are technically accurate. But the connotation ensures that a deeper, scarier message is conveyed. I do take you at your word though that it was not your intention. Take this discussion then as a warning that your statement may not have come off as you intended it to. It is not FUD to point out that a company sells eyeballs. If you had said "Google sells users' eyeballs to its customers: advertisers" you would have received no complaint from me. Adding that single word, "eyeballs", entirely clarifies your statement. Without it, people will need to fill in something else since we all know Google isn't literally selling its users to advertisers. A lot of people will interpret your statement as "Google sells users' personal information to its customers: advertisers." Leaving out the clarification made it seem as though you wanted to allow the reader to draw a more frightening conclusion about Google's business model than is justified by reality. Anyway I think we both agree. I have friends at Google, but they are in ad sales and HR not engineering. So I certainly don't think of Google as merely a "benevolent group of engineers." I have no problem calling out their business model for what it is. But accuracy and precision is important, especially when being concise.