Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s for sure cause for alarm, but it is a different alarm than if you gad broken into my computer. I’m not a fan of the “they did something bad, so we might as well pretend they did something worse” line of argument. It strikes me as dishonest.
In 2024 to assume a company is not exercising virtually all the rights you’ve given them when you agreed to their terms and services - especially when they stand to make a ton of money doing so - is wild to me. These companies do not get the benefit of the doubt. I do not need proof to assume they are selling us to the highest bidder when they explicitly outline it in their terms and services and have done it time an…
Or are you again presenting an assumption as fact.
I think assuming a company is selling your data is a completely fair one. But it’s also completely fair to ask that people don’t use language that implies factual knowledge to represent those assumptions.
If only to make your argument better you might evaluate your comments and see how your language is weakening it.