[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.