There's really no debate here. The person you replied to pretty much nailed it down.
You could maybe theoretically try to argue that there are damages to the datapede through implicit language? But since the article clearly states "purchasing data is legal", and the article headline is not factually nor textually inaccurate... Oh, and they'd have to prove someone tied their .win account to their public identity, and caused damage to them therein.
Sorry, really not seeing it. Raving about muh lawsuits! just reeks of Karen-ish frivolous lawsuits, particularly when the premise under which you would litigate is false.
heck, lets see what others say..
There's really no debate here. The person you replied to pretty much nailed it down.
You could maybe theoretically try to argue that there are damages to the datapede through implicit language? But since the article clearly states "purchasing data is legal", and the article headline is not factually nor textually inaccurate... Oh, and they'd have to prove someone tied their .win account to their public identity, and caused damage to them therein.
Sorry, really not seeing it. Raving about muh lawsuits! just reeks of Karen-ish frivolous lawsuits, particularly when the premise under which you would litigate is false.
That was my point. After reading the article, I don't think there's a case. However, that headline is definitely meant to smear TD.win.
Oh yeah, for sure. The sad thing is how it's so blatant in its framing. Journalists used to be more subtle in their propagandizing.
The only thing this faux news article will achieve is more Pedes on thedonald. We should thank them for the shout out.