It might appear like that from a corporate PR perspective, but from the perspective of a user that's just one of those rare cases where you get a glimpse of honesty, which is just (if not more) as valid as some undefined liability to be the ground for you assessment
> from the perspective of a user that's just one of those rare cases where you get a glimpse of honesty
User asked for data download. Company said there isn't any. User said that isn't GDPR compliant, which is nonsense. Company gave correct, snotty response.
I get it. I've been pissed off at companies before, too, and basically engaged in a support conversation to get something ambiguous in writing that I could use to cost them time and money in New York, California, Texas or the EU. (Big regulatory organiations, some of which love fodder with which to justify their existence.)
User was going down a rabbit hole. Kagi followed them there. They shouldn't have responded to that thread after it went into territory that on HN would have been flagged and in real life been settled with a glare.
