[craigsmansion]

By posing false dichotomies: "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?"

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple is acting in Apple's best interest without attributing malevolence.

By downplaying rational arguments: "I think the privacy arguments are far-fetched (because others are worse)"

By using loaded terms: "Dogwhistles

The privacy squad mobilised"

Presenting strawmen: "if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code. This is a fallacy that people buy in to thanks to effective marketing "

Lying by omission: "It's not feasible for an individual to maintain the list of trustworthy or untrustworthy parties that Apple does."

It's perfectly feasible for a group of individuals. I'll take any group distro maintainers over Apple's word.

He really doesn't just sound like an Apple apologist; he is one.

[macintux]

Fair points, I should have re-read it after seeing the GP’s comment.

[zepto]

You’re exaggerating, and then falling into the same traps you are accusing him of.

A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that.

I agree with you about his use of loaded terms, and the dismissiveness.

The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5706

The lie of omission you assert isn’t a lie.

No group of distro maintainers has solved the problem Apple is solving. The author used the word ‘feasible’. This is currently true, but doesn’t need to remain so. The fact that you are technically literate enough to know about distro maintainers, and trust them does not mean it is feasible for everyone to do so.

“He really doesn’t just sound like an Apple apologist; he is one.”

If that isn’t a loaded term, I don’t know what is.

[craigsmansion]

> A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that.

The exclusive "or" in "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?" still makes it a false dichotomy.

> The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument.

"if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code.":

is not something someone knowledgeable would ever claim, only that having the code and building the code will be at least as safe or safer than not having the code at all. Presenting it as "nothing can hide in the code" and then attacking that is, in my opinion, a strawman argument.

> The author used the word ‘feasible’.

And he is correct in that. No single individual can maintain the software integrity of an entire operating system, but a group of people can do so. The omission here is that that group of people need not be Apple.

The argument here is that without Apple taking control of the user's software the user would fall prey to the privacy violating practices of the likes of Google and Microsoft, which is not true. Hence the "lie by omission".

> If that isn’t a loaded term, I don’t know what is.

The term is from the article: "While I'm going to sound like an Apple apologist,"

He claims he is not X, but has given no argument why he shouldn't be considered X and has presented a lot of arguments on why he should be considered X.

He has presented no reason to assume he is not a devoted Apple user, or in his words, an "Apple apologist".

In short, I'm not sure I'm exaggerating, but that I'm willing to disagree on.

[zepto]

Many invalid points, and straw men in your comment. Here are the more important ones:

“The argument here is that without Apple taking control of the user's software the user would fall prey to the privacy violating practices of the likes of Google and Microsoft, which is not true. Hence the "lie by omission".”

You say it’s ‘not true’. I think it’s quite likely to be true.

But more importantly - it’s an argument. Not a fact. You just happen to disagree with him. It’s not a lie of omission to simply come to a different conclusion.

He hasn’t presented any argument why he should be considered an apologist. You are arguing that he is an apologist. That is both ad hominem, and a loaded term, and it’s you who is using it.

[craigsmansion]

> He hasn’t presented any argument why he should be considered an apologist.

He _literally_ did, himself, in the article he wrote:

"I think the privacy arguments are far-fetched"

and actually acknowledging it verbatim:

"While I'm going to sound like an Apple apologist,"

as in "people who say this are Apple apologists, but I'm only like one if I state it."

> Many invalid points, and straw men in your comment.

Of course.

[zepto]

I see you concede that there was no lie of omission.

You just disagree with him, but are engaging in ad hominem rather than engaging with his points.