Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? You're the one that said no comment was suspicious! I said something weaker than that, that it's not very suspicious. I'm not the one that said a canary failing is a yes. I said it was significantly more suspicious than a no comment.
Yes, I was the one saying that _people_ consider it suspicious, but I'm also the one saying that as a company your only course of action is to not comment on legal matters unless legally compelled to. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. People (in aggregate) don't act rationally, so even if it's going to lose you some customers, no comment.
If it's about what powersnail is saying, I think they're just wording things imprecisely. The canary doesn't actually affect the meaning of "no comment". The canary means that if it disappears, things are very suspicious, and if ask directly about the canary and get a "no comment" then you not only stay very suspicious, you also know they didn't forget. The no comment itself is not a "yes", but from a security point of view you should treat this active lack of canary as if it is a "yes".
Which they referred to as a "practical/tentative yes". Which I think is a reasonable way to describe the situation. It's not "flat out wrong" or "counter-productive".
> so even if it's going to lose you some customers, no comment
You're going too far here.
If you used to comment on something, and you could easily comment on it, and it loses you customers not to comment... you should comment. If you don't, it is suspicious.