I'm replying to reinforce that I'm curious about the schizophrenic interpretation.
I don't think working through this further conversations or sheds light.
IMHO it creates the same problem as the initial comment, though the avenue is different ("its too confusing to discuss because the EFF says they're ineffective, but the NBC article contains 'crucial tool" vs. "its not worth discussing because the memo in the NBC article can't be trusted, broken could mean anything")
I think you just have to accept that without an actual deep dive into this, you're not going to get the information necessary to have anything more than a vague 'someone told me something about something once' opinion.
It's one thing to argue about results, it's another thing to argue about the minutia of the process that gets those results, and who's at fault for what, and which parts of it need to be fixed up, and which are just not a large priority.
You don't need to be a subject matter expert to know that your city had a power outage, and be pissed about it.
You do need to be one, in order to have an informed opinion on how to best prevent the next one.
I don't think working through this further conversations or sheds light.
IMHO it creates the same problem as the initial comment, though the avenue is different ("its too confusing to discuss because the EFF says they're ineffective, but the NBC article contains 'crucial tool" vs. "its not worth discussing because the memo in the NBC article can't be trusted, broken could mean anything")