[lisper]

Not yet. But they could start any time they wanted to. Who would save you then?

[robflynn]

Okay, but so could anyone. I'm not sure your point here?

They're clearly at least trying to move in the opposite direction and have been making those moves for some time now.

Maybe they won't always go that way. Maybe they will.

No one is saying they're our savior, though. No one is begging Apple to please save us.

[S_A_P]

Facebook is a problem now. Apple is not that we know of. Why deflect with hypothetical scenarios?

[hobs]

Not Facebook so what's your point? The enemy of my enemy isnt my friend, but I might smile as they land a good punch.

[user-the-name]

See, it's a bit more persuasive if you criticise companies for things they are actually doing, rather than for things you imagine they could do.

[tw04]

>Who would save you then?

Why would I need to be saved? I'll just buy a device from a different manufacturer. If there are literally no privacy-respecting options, and a majority of people think there should be one, either a company will form on its own, or constituents will make enough noise that the government will step in.

If not in the US, the EU still seems to have some basic respect for the rights of their citizens.

[sonotathrowaway]

This is the literal definition of a strawman argument, isn’t it?

[lisper]

No. A straw-man is arguing against a position other than the one that your interlocutor is actually taking. This is a hypothetical, not a straw man.

[GeekyBear]

Just as Facebook and Google could openly start selling all the information they have collected at any time?

I mean, it goes against the business model they operate under, but they could, right?