Hey! I'll have you know that at least one out of every hundred fights looks vaguely like a boxing match!

Yeah, also they're sourcing from ISW. Which is fine, if proper considerations are made.

But, they were not. Really low-hanging fruit of an article imo.

Are you lost?

The reason this doesn't make sense to you is because of how you're framing it.

This corpo is being run unilaterally by someone unconcerned with its longevity. It's that simple.

You're hired!

Product is sold by weight. Some settling during package and handling may occur. You can be assured of the proper weight regardless of settling.

Enjoy your 6 cornrings.

That is the entire (and only) point I was making. x)

On the contrary, I'm not conflating two specifics. I'm speaking in general terms about the demonstrable public perception (read: billions of social media users who happily hand over their data vs. the palpable unease over data publication in all walks of tech discussion) and how it is innately hypocritical.

It is perfectly normal and useful to discuss societal contradictions. For example: "We hate school shootings, but we do fuck-all to stop them from occurring." That statement does not conflate two different vocal minorities, it purports to accurately describe the generalized societal contradiction at hand.

The rest of your post is completely off-topic.

Why? The masses have no issue forking data over to big tech. What difference does it make if it's one or a million corporations using that data when it's being sold willy-nilly to anybody with a checkbook?

The point is not how many actors have access to your data. The point is that in both scenarios (public data vs. single-corporation-controlled data), your data is pragmatically public from data sales, data leaks, and so on. However, in only one of them, your data is ostensibly "protected" by a corporation - the lie at hand. In the other scenario, you are under no spell that your data is protected or private - the truth.

My comment was simply pointing out how they're effectively the same thing. Giving your data to a big tech firm is effectively the same thing as making it public. Hence, the outrage over one not matching the outrage over the other is amusing to me because it implies how effective the corpo framing of this issue is.

No bootlicking detected. The first sentence of my comment actually belies my contempt for them.

There's something amusing about people feeling violated by their activity being made public, but not necessarily by corporations hoarding and capitalizing on that activity & data. I mean, one of them is out in the open. The other is pure abuse.

It's a race thing. The term "expat" is used almost exclusively by us white folk to spare us the dreadful indignation that is being labeled an "immigrant."

Seriously, it's a race thing.