[gabeio]

> "We should delete data so that people get upset" is just shy of "we should shoot some kids so people will finally get upset".

Excuse me? Since when is shooting kids _just shy of_ deleting data. And no the rest of your comment doesn't pull that argument together.

[TheRealPomax]

It's just shy of it by the part where people rather than important information die; the structure of the argument is exactly the same. "We should do the thing we want to not have happen so much and to such a severe degree that people will finally get upset enough to want to stop us, but we better do it *a lot* because we know they won't care otherwise" is a truly idiotic argument to make when the thing you're doing can't be undone, and your goal is to not have it happen at all.

Whether it's information deletion or human deletion, you can't undo the damage you're doing, so what the hell are you talking about when you pretend it's something to consider?