I agree with your sentiment but unless the person you replied to edited their comment it seems misguided. They mostly just said they didn't agree with you, there was no outrage or one upping, and genuine discussions should be encouraged

▲

hypfer 10 hours ago | parent [-]

If you look at it, it's just "it's ill-intent based on what it is, regardless of intent".

Which is.. a dumb statement, but also just the usual social media outrage one-upping in lingo that passes the letter of the law of HN.

Effectively, the user just said that things are bad in response to an implicit "let us examine why, how, and what to do about it". Which is known, but unhelpful and derailing.

And.. somehow also hinted at that I'd not be aligned enough, because my definition of ill-intent being based on intent is not shared.

Anyway.

	▲	dwedge 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I read it more as them disagreeing with at what point it's "intent" - is it bad to give yourself the option to record all customers without consent or does it only become bad once they actually turn it on (remotely) and start shipping it. Having said that, you might be right given the follow up to you