iOS15: China exempt from Apple 'private relay' privacy feature

Thought this was rather interesting.
If you live in a country where privacy is still respected by its government, be grateful - that can very well disappear one day.

1 Like

This isn’t what I said, but regardless…

What would your proposed alternative be?

Offer this in china and get banned, so everyone in china is required to use phones that support zero privacy?

Pull out of China? What problem does that solve for Chinese citizens?

Everyone wants to say that Apple sucks for not doing stuff like this in China, but is unable to propose a solution that actually improves the lives of Chinese citizens.

2 Likes

So you copied and pasted a response by someone else to a different thread to respond to mine? :thinking:

They made a good point.

2 Likes

Really? Seriously? In response to what? It certainly wasn’t in any context of what I said.
How about you put a response to my post in your own words instead of copying and pasting someone else’s out of context?

It was in response to the exact same news article.

2 Likes

So what? Read my original post. What did I say?
I said be grateful if you live in a country where privacy is still respected by its government.
Did I say anything about Apple? Did I criticize Apple? Did I directly accuse China or its CCP? NO. I did not.

Your regurgitation of someone else’s post was a rebuttal to a criticism of Apple and an accusation of a failure to propose a solution to improve the lives of Chinese citizens - neither of which had anything to do with my original post.

The article itself may have done those things, in which case you need to state in your own words what issues you had with the article. Posting someone else’s words out of context like that is a fallacy of relevance.

The title of this topic and the article you put in the original post are completely relevant to the quote that was created in response to the exact same news story that I then shared here due to its relevancy.

1 Like

Oh, I beg to differ. Again - read my OP:
“Thought this was rather interesting.
If you live in a country where privacy is still respected by its government, be grateful - that can very well disappear one day.”

Now read your plagiarized response:
What would your proposed alternative be? Alternative to what? What does this have to do with my OP?
Offer this in china and get banned, so everyone in china is required to use phones that support zero privacy? Please point out where I said something even remotely related to this statement
Pull out of China? What problem does that solve for Chinese citizens? Same
Everyone wants to say that Apple sucks for not doing stuff like this in China, but is unable to propose a solution that actually improves the lives of Chinese citizens. Please point out where I even mentioned Apple

What you are doing here @WumboJumbo, is you are responding to the Article itself, not my words in the OP. This is called a Fallacy of Relevance. It’s quite common in debates. A person will make an argument and the next person will refute a totally different argument. Hence - a fallacy of relevance. That’s what you’re doing. If you have a problem with the article itself - then respond to the author. Instead, if you want to have an intellectually honest discussion, why not say something in your own words instead of using someone else’s and then making the false claim that they are relevant to my post?

Alternative to allowing the “private relay” in China. The consequences of allowing it in China are immense.

It has to do with the subject at hand.

Do you just want me to regurgitate the exact same thing that you said?

In the title of the topic?

Even the article that you linked has everything to do with Apple. Is the purpose of this topic not clear or am I just missing something here?

Why even include the article then? I’m not obligated to only reference what you said in the original post. Why can’t I reference what was said in the article? I certainly wasn’t quoting myself and I didn’t take any credit for myself.

This doesn’t need to be as complicated as it’s made out to be.

Seriously, why are we even arguing about this? We are straying off-topic.

2 Likes