[reducesuffering]

It's a rhetorical tool that quickly highlights the absurdity of pointing out actual harm experienced makes the subject un-objective.

Would you prefer an example of 50 companies being hacked, them advocating for better cybersecurity measures everywhere, and someone pointing out they're now un-objective and should be dismissed? That this doesn't indicate anything about how cybersecurity measures are needed?

I also find it hilarious that you're accusing me of playing "bingo" while half your argument is:

"logical fallacy", "strawman", "appeal to emotion", and "poisoning the well" in quick succession.

Although I'm hoping it's just good sarcasm if it's impossible to distinguish.

[22c]

Rhetorical tool? No it's a logical fallacy because you are misrepresenting the argument made by the OP in an attempt to attack it and you're confusing the deaths of family members with a little bit of lost revenue.

Here's a better analogy for you.

This post may as well be talking about how household electricity is the worst invention of the 19th century because of how inefficient long distance DC power transmission is.