[ImPostingOnHN]

I'm not really interested in further engaging here unless you're willing to engage with the topic** in a manner more substantive than 'I personally feel this topic is fluff* / propaganda* / advertorial* / biased* / ideological* / hysteriaporn* / some other shallow dismissal / etc, and I don't want to discuss it'.

I don't expect that I'll change your feelings about the topic**, and I don't want to oblige you to keep replying in a post about a topic** which you personally don't like and personally don't want to discuss.

* – all of these are shallow dismissals from you here

** – how europeans feel about american tech lately

[ctrlp]

To be fair, you've offered nothing of substance to this thread. Just demanding that I accept the authority of an FT op-ed when I provide elaborated reasons not to is extremely lazy. Need I trace FT's funding sources, institutional backing, and factionalism for you? If you don't want to put in any effort, that's fine. Just bow out. Otherwise, stop sealioning me and do some work.

[ImPostingOnHN]

There's no need for you to accept anything, the minimal bias and high factuality of FT stands on its own regardless of what a single random internet commentator says or accepts.

You have an opportunity here to share these equally-biased, equally-factual sources you've been talking about which provide alternative perspectives on the topic*. You can take that opportunity or leave it. Personally, I'd love to read them and learn their perspectives, but as far as I can tell from what you've linked, they don't exist. Don't you want to help others "triangulate", as you called it?

If you just don't like FT or don't like the topic*, that'd be a different topic (and not one that interests me).

* – how europeans feel about american tech lately