> This phrasing needs to die.

If we're being annoying about language for no valid reason, I would say that a "phrasing" cannot "die", because a "phrasing" is not a living creature.

> Laws don’t not allow anything, they only sometimes impose penalties if you’re caught breaking them.

How does it work with your parents? Do they cast a spell that prevents you from hanging out with that boy? Nobody was "allowed" to smoke, and yet...

Fortunately for me, words are allowed to have more than one meaning.

die /dī/

intransitive verb

2. To cease existing, especially by degrees; fade.

I explicitly said I was being annoying for no valid reason. If you want to justify something here, you should probably justify that you weren't annoying for no valid reason.

Does your dictionary say that "not allowed" is specific to parents and children?

From the HN guidelines:

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thank you! That's exactly what you did not do. The strongest plausible interpretation of "not allowed in Europe" was perfectly fine.

I'm glad we agree.

> That's exactly what you did not do.

Heh, yeah, you do have a point there.

I consider businesses who do this to track customers naughty, and I find their behaviour childish (scriptkiddie level). Therefore, 'not allowed' is exactly the phrasing I like to use in this context, and readers are expected to understand this refers to legal status.

You should also consider not everyone on HN is a native speaker, and consider to focus on the content of posts instead of minor tangents.