I don't understand how it's naive at best? What you've stated, sounds almost the same as what i stated except with optimism.

This is a pretty insulting, and not bound to help people listen and understand you.

I remain unconvinced the original statement is false. I don't care about being correct.

See my original comment:

I think there might be a balance here that's hard to strike

A higher standard means ignoring voting citizens?

That seems unfair

Your one example is pretty easy to refute, I own my house I don't want houses to lose that stored value, or all the money I've been shoveling into my mortgage I could have been saving for w/e. It ignores that people with houses have been saving for years.

Reduction and stagnation are different.

1. You already are charged by Google the price is your data and ads
2. The target is 1 billion dollar + entities (based on my skim)

Just like the original comment this seems like wild overstatement.