Because it frames the situation in a certain, coerced way.
I do not think that is a valid comparison. The author did not go out of her way to point out that the server was located in China. There is no mention of China in the title, and the only place where the author mentions China is several paragraphs in explaining how and where the data is transmitted. There are more mentions of China in this comment than in the entire article.
Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote.
I think HN applies a rate limiter to comment threads, to help reduce flame wars.
> Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote.
Accounts get the downvote when they reach a karma threshold. I think that's currently 500, or maybe 750.
If the author had instead attempted to tie this to, say, past security breaches caused by hackers operating out of China, then that would be framing the situation in a coerced way.
Man kills man.
Man kills black man.
White man kills black man.
Assuming the facts are all the same, do you understand how the selective informing of facts frames the readers understanding or impression of the issue?
Thanks for the downvote though.
Human kills human.
Life form kills life form.
At what point does it end? You are splitting hairs and I think you know it.
You are splitting hairs and I think you know it.