But the author isn’t defending analogous behavior. The author isn’t defending Google.

There are better ways to make a point than sharing a fantasy about having someone stalked. It’s a joke until it isn’t.

> The author isn’t defending Google.

My reading of the thread is that this is the fundamental presumption of the thread.

I think your differences with the OP go deeper.

> It’s a joke until it isn’t.

My reading wasn't that it was necessarily a joke, but making a point.

Sort of like threatening to put a camera in the bathroom of someone who says they have "nothing to hide" when discussing the patriot act.

It makes the point in a more visceral way than a simple argument ever could, and gets the point across quite well.

You read the thread but did you read the article? This entire thread is based on an emotional over reaction to a misreading of the article.

I did, it feels open to interpretation.

Top two readings on my end are that this is either a person who really didn't want to write this article that was ordered to, or someone who is trying to be maximally defensive of google without actually lying (possibly someone with nostalgia for the 2000-2005 era when they were the internet's good guys).