Then this would be a great addition to Matthew Garret's original blog post.
> The rest of us are of course free to decide you're just an abuse apologist asking questions in bad faith.
I could as well argue that you're defending a bad blog post in bad faith. Because if this blog post stays as unconvincing as it is (this is what I criticised in my first comment), it will do a much "better" job at defending abuse than any abuse apologist could do.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2023-11-02 12:26 pm (UTC)> The rest of us are of course free to decide you're just an abuse apologist asking questions in bad faith.
I could as well argue that you're defending a bad blog post in bad faith. Because if this blog post stays as unconvincing as it is (this is what I criticised in my first comment), it will do a much "better" job at defending abuse than any abuse apologist could do.