Vainamoinen: However, the necessity for debate is there, and "but Valve is doing it" never ever counts as an argument.
It is when the argument is "Valve did it
and the baby-eating apocalyptic conspiracy theories people are hand-wringing over didn't happen". Strawmanning points by chopping off important context from them is just as bad as whataboutism in arguments, FYI.
And I brought up the fandom issues I've been having because it's all the same deal. Every single item I listed had a valid complaint in there somewhere, but it ended up buried under so much hysterical hyperbole that it still ended up impossible to take the complaint remotely seriously.
Likewise, saying GOG should have defaulted to the strongest privacy option is a valid complaint, but when people then start going on about how they're going to retain lawyers to sue for a refund of all their games because GOG is so evil and horrible in that the world might find out about their crazy Planescape Torment addiction, I then start losing the ability to take them seriously.
Basically, if you want to be taken seriously and have a serious debate, you have to actually react to things in sane and proportional ways, as well as base your conjecture on things that actually have or haven't already happened.