You know, I didn't think I wanted to dignify this with this level of response, but maybe someone else is going to get confused and I have terrible insomnia: you responded to someone (me) telling someone else "the information you think is relevant to changing my mind is information you should know I already have, which means there is some framing problem in our conversation that needs to be addressed" with a (slightly indirect, and thereby to me incredibly snippy sounding and extra insulting) comment claiming that is an "appeal to authority", when that statement wasn't even an argument and so wasn't an "appeal": you can't read that comment from me as "I am right because of who I am", as it is simply "you are trying to convince me of your point using information I do not disagree with (and which you should know I have, and so should probably know I don't disagree with...)" and was nothing more than a lead-in to my actual point, which was "given that I know that and that we don't even disagree there, you should go back and notice the following thing about what I said: we are talking about different points", which was the actual statement in that comment: I believe the article is not actually focusing on the same problem as Apple's bug bounty program.
You framed the problem as a moral one. dguido framed it as an economic one.
You responded to his rebuttal with "I know how these things work, don't you know who I am?" reiterate position without adding any further points or addressing the opposing party's points
How is that not an appeal to authority?
I don't know who you are (and maybe that's why I'm the only one calling you out). If you are as influential in this space as you appear to be, it's important to take the initiative to present strong arguments rather than rely on your name.
Sorry to hear about the insomnia - I'm in the same boat. Hope it gets better.