> You don't seem to be engaging in good faith.

You posted actual nonsense and then declined to say if you are for or against telling people that salmonella is real.

Anyway, in good faith

> Obviously that depends on context.

This makes sense. Context matters, and it is important to imagine some when it is missing. For example, in this exchange you saw a stranger on the internet post “rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk” and, in a vacuum of any relevant information, pictured a world where they work at Samsung in their Awful Spyware Division and started posting from that premise.

Or just saying it at all FUDs up the vibe and ruins the context?

The point you are making is either that it is important to invent context if you feel FUD, or that the wrong context for certain correct information is “the context wherein it is shared”.

Can you clarify which is it?

Either we agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk and you just sort of imagine me working for a terrible company,

or

We both agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk but you and I are the only people that should know that. Any context where this fact that we agree about could be shared is made inappropriate by its inclusion.

Like are we dealing with hallucinations or are we dealing with Untouchable Facts