Re:Privacy Harm Is Harm
by charcircuit on Saturday October 04, 2025 @02:14PM
(#45475381)
If you understood my comment you would understand that I don't agree with them. If you are trying to passively aggressively call me out for not reading reading article (of which I did), do so directly.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Privacy Harm Is Harm
by mtlmtlmtlmtl on Saturday October 04, 2025 @02:49PM
(#45475658)
What is there to understand about it? You don't make an argument, just a shallow dismissal. There's nothing about your comment that indicates you read TFA.
You could engage with the article and explain why you don't agree with the argument that is being made - or you could simply leave no comment at all. That is the hidden subtext of the comment you are replying to here.
The article made a case. You didn't refute it or make your own, you just said "nuh uh".
Re:Privacy Harm Is Harm
by charcircuit on Saturday October 04, 2025 @05:10PM
(#45476745)
>you just said "nuh uh".
The article doesn't make a case. They are just saying "nuh uh" to the decision the court made.
Re:Privacy Harm Is Harm
by digitalPhonix on Sunday October 05, 2025 @03:43AM
(#45479650)
There's a 30ish page (not including all the legal template) brief explaining their arguement. How is that not making a case? There's even a excerpt from the brief going over one of their arguments.