> If someone first makes a false accusation, then post a “correction” only to double down on a lesser yet still false accusation, I’d say it’s reason enough to conclude that they’re arguing in bad faith and attempting to slander.
You aren't listening to what he's saying: "If you have reason to be concerned about the CCP undermining your communications infrastructure, it's a distinction without a difference.
The reason they brought it up remains valid with the correction."
For me I just stop responding to anyone focusing on minor details and missing the point
Anything related to China CCP has large enough security concern chance. This is due to political motive to have control of information flow on everything they can.
Any team in China can be enforced to provide one or more means to obtain more data or can't operate smoothly. (See Google)
This is not "anti-China", more like "anti anti-privacy" (what's the opposite of privacy?). Same goes for any US company that does anti-privacy things like Google.
We're not talking legalese, we're talking about privacy. It's quite easy to defame an argument by nitpicking, but the holistic view that anything developed or with tightly or loosely coupled links to China by default. Explicitly should be called out as being untrusted.
You aren't listening to what he's saying: "If you have reason to be concerned about the CCP undermining your communications infrastructure, it's a distinction without a difference. The reason they brought it up remains valid with the correction."