Yet here you are, many comments deep. Almost like the doublethink / pointless bit is what you think is good debating tactics.
Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it.
See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18 prevented BartGPT from coming to Canada, Google would absolutely have cited it given their public fight. But they didn't (despite your claims about how clear this is). Instead they did the classic hand-wavy something-something bit that no legal analysis can actually refute. It riles up the bootlickers, while everyone else is going ???.
It's a tantrum. I am tired of your rhetoric, strawmanning and poor set logic responses so this will be the final time I respond to you.
As a side note, it's funny to call criticism of the governments overreaching bill 'bootlicking'. If there is one boot you should be afraid of stomping on your face it's the governments
Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it.
See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18 prevented BartGPT from coming to Canada, Google would absolutely have cited it given their public fight. But they didn't (despite your claims about how clear this is). Instead they did the classic hand-wavy something-something bit that no legal analysis can actually refute. It riles up the bootlickers, while everyone else is going ???.
It's a tantrum. I am tired of your rhetoric, strawmanning and poor set logic responses so this will be the final time I respond to you.