That's not what was being argued, but you made an excellent point.

What was being argued was exactly this.

I know what I was arguing, and it was specifically mentioned, so no it was not what was being argued.

> Scanning people's on-phone photos clearly has nothing to do with being a precursor to e2e encryption

This is what you were arguing. It is false.

Followed by this, "The photos get transferred either way, so one has nothing to do with the other."

It was clearly a technical statement not a privacy statement, so only superficial reading might lead one to believe it meant something that it did not.

That is why I replied that the person who replied to my comment, where I said I had argued something different, but that what he wrote was an excellent point.

So, what on earth are you so invested in that you feel the need to argue minutiae that don't apply?

> "The photos get transferred either way, so one has nothing to do with the other."

That doesn’t change anything. It may be a pre-requisite from the perspective of their business. You replied to me and I didn’t constrain my point to just technicalities.

> So, what on earth are you so invested in that you feel the need to argue minutiae that don't apply?

It does apply. I’m simply pointing out that what you said is not correct.