[joshuamorton]

No, and I'd appreciate if you make an effort to actually understand what I'm saying instead of repeatedly reaching for negative interpretations

It has nothing to do with your intelligence and everything with information you have access to. Often understanding the real answer requires information you don't have and can't be given. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

But you aren't going to get that information, and it's not because it's bad, it's because it cant be given to anyone. So you can't have the full explanation either.

[Lkjhmnbv]

I do understand. You just don't like the conclusion I drew as it paints the company in a bad light.

We fundamentally disagree on how companies should behave. That's all.

[joshuamorton]

That you think my explanation relies on your naivete strongly implies that you didn't actually take the time to understand my response.

Here's three statements, tell me where you disagree:

There are certain things it would be unethical for a company to make public.

Companies often make decisions based on these things.

Justifying these decisions in public requires either acting unethically, or lying and providing PR bases answers about why a company is doing a thing.

Keep in mind that even saying that a decision was made or on what private information it was made can reveal information. Going back to the abuse example, nefarious actors will try to reverse engineer abuse models when you tell them what was involved in the decision to ban them.

[Lkjhmnbv]

Nothing you said is relevant to Dragonfly, or any other of a number of bad decisions by Google.

Not everyone is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt any more. I'm sorry that bothers you, but that's reality. You can be mad about it, or you can attempt to understand and mitigate the issue. That's on you.