Well, you’ve presented an elementary level view of the problem. The issue is that solving a problem effectively often requires defining the problem and its mechanics and drivers in greater detail to identify solutions that are to fit to address the nuances of the issue.

Otherwise you end up with billions of dollars spent on a useless wall.

> you’ve presented an elementary level view of the problem

I'm presenting the problem as it is understood by almost everyone who views the issue as a problem. The problem isn't ill defined: it's quite clearly defined. What we're disagreeing on is whether it constitutes the root problem. The EFF doesn't do itself any service by dismissing as ill-defined a perfectly well-defined problem when the disagreement is over whether it's a problem at all.

Put another way: if I say my problem is I'm seeing too many orange things, I think that problem is perfectly well defined. It's just not really a prolbem.

No, we are not disagreeing on whether it constitutes the root problem.

What I am saying is that there’s nuance to the mechanics of the problem that are important to acknowledge when forming an effective solution; and you’re just repeating yourself with no acknowledgement of the nuance and an appeal to the masses.

> there’s nuance to the mechanics of the problem that are important to acknowledge when forming an effective solution

Sure. I'm saying that is irrelevant to whether it is an "ill-formed problem."