[Slartie]

It is a straw man because you are obviously dragging this into the realm of defending against malicious intent from Google, which clearly does not apply here. The near-monopolist argument by which you attempt to construct a "right" to demand anything more than omission of malicious behavior does not hold water: Google does not have a monopoly (or a near-monopoly) on the browser market, there are Firefox and Edge, of which both are fit for use in enterprise environments, regularly patched and compatible with practically any website out there, including even those from Google.

[colejohnson66]

From the dictionary:

> straw man (n):

> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

So, no, it isn’t a straw man because he’s not manipulating/misrepresenting your argument. Whether an argument is about defending malicious behavior or not has no bearing on whether or not it’s a straw man.

[Slartie]

Moving the argument, which has been about a user of a free software program having neither an actual nor a moral capability of demanding that the free software fits their particular needs (which in this case means to work as a critical part of their business and continue working as such under their particular environment) into the legal realm and making it into a proposition that a user of a free software has no rights at all, not even legal rights to defend against malicious behavior of the producer of the software, is an intentional misrepresentation of the argument, and it is easier to defeat than the actual argument since there are clearly such defensive rights.