Ack sorry, my bad. It wasn't meant to be, but I see I have misintentionally done just that.
What I meant to communnicate was "we shouldn't take these stats at face value and therefore assume the scandals have had no impact" but I made the mistake of phrasing it as if it were an assertion (not an interpretation I'm used to), being too pithy, and also using Zuckerberg's name rather than "social media"/"facebook".
I didn't mean it to be a tangent, just a genuine point that such statistics should be treated with healthy scepticism and therefore caution against concluding too much from them. Hopefully the last bit in the post at least indicates I was sincere. But totally my bad. Need to take more care.
I'm certainly often a contrarian, but never intentionally a troll.
Thanks. Moderating HN has taught me that most of what looks like trolling is unintentional.
Most of us consider our comments to be individual statements; we don't think of them as roots of the next possible subthread. But that's actually what matters for discussion quality.
What I meant to communnicate was "we shouldn't take these stats at face value and therefore assume the scandals have had no impact" but I made the mistake of phrasing it as if it were an assertion (not an interpretation I'm used to), being too pithy, and also using Zuckerberg's name rather than "social media"/"facebook".
I didn't mean it to be a tangent, just a genuine point that such statistics should be treated with healthy scepticism and therefore caution against concluding too much from them. Hopefully the last bit in the post at least indicates I was sincere. But totally my bad. Need to take more care.
I'm certainly often a contrarian, but never intentionally a troll.