No one put words in your mouth, they asked you a question. You are the one who made the initial comparison to B2C apps, so it seems like a fair question to me. Your comment implies that its standard and the app isn't doing anything out of the ordinary when I think most people would except an official government app to be held to a higher standard than the average B2C app.
>You are the one who made the initial comparison to B2C apps, so it seems like a fair question to me.
The relevant part of B2C is the 2C part, not the B. Mass market apps are generally ridden with telemetry and SDKs. Moreover I'm not sure how you think it's a "fair question" to go from a remark about how other apps are equally bad, to thinking I want the US government to operate as a business. It's like doing:
A: "I called the IRS and was put on hold for 2 hours, can you believe that?"
B: "To be fair that's the experience calling into most businesses, like banks or the cable company"
A: "Wow so you think we should be running the IRS like a bank?"
>I think most people would except an official government app to be held to a higher standard than the average B2C app.
Is this a "yes, in an ideal world that's how things should be" type of statement, or are you claiming "yes, government agencies have a track record of delivering technical excellence on software projects, and this particular project was especially bad"? The former is basically a meaningless platitude, and I don't think anyone seriously thinks the latter is true.
It's a classic deflection tactic - when they can't refute you by merit, they answer something with a question that is completely different about what was said - BOOM, the discussion is now about something else, completely different from the original issue. I honestly can't tell if it's bots or humans these days doing this a lot, but they're getting pretty good at it.