Sure, you can argue that its a bad deal, shouldn't be allowed period, etc. But that is a different argument than saying that there is no scrutiny.
Sure, you can argue that its a bad deal, shouldn't be allowed period, etc. But that is a different argument than saying that there is no scrutiny.
Sounds like a case of “there’s not enough scrutiny unless the decision ends up agreeing with my position”
The argument is that the scrutiny is in practice not sufficient, as usual in these cases.
The argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes:
1. Google could do it.
2. <This space is intentionally left blank>
3. Therefore, Google is doing it!
(Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.)
You are ignoring the value of previous experience:
Please replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument.
The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct.
Insufficient scrutiny would be more apt.