A business duty to comply with the law is not a rhetorical appeal to authority, it is a fact.
Ask the accountant who wrote the check to the CNIL for the most recent cookie fine what they think.
Ask the accountant who wrote the check to the CNIL for the most recent cookie fine what they think.
> comply with the law
> Google paid the [authority] a large fine
> legislation is being drafted
This is the authority to which your argument appeals.
Saying the king is wearing a crown is a statement of fact, not an appeal to authority. Saying Google paid a fine is a fact, not an appeal to authority.
> Saying Google paid a fine is a fact
My point has been that Google believing they have consent for tracking usage of Bard is “valid”. Pointing to the fact that Google paid a fine to a particular legal authority as a reason for understanding that this consent is “not valid” is the appeal to authority.
(Please also consider that you have “shifted the goalposts”.)
Edit: I should apologize for the above parenthetical about shifting the goalposts. In retrospect this appears more as a regular misunderstanding. I should have tried to clarify earlier. It’s not an excuse but an explanation: I believe I was simply frustrated by the misunderstanding. I am sorry for that accusation.
Examining it as an adult I recognize that I just enjoy navigating the logic of various arguments. Kind of a stereotypical philosopher; really, young me just didn’t know “philosopher” was a thing. Way more applicable.
I appreciate your understanding!