That article explains what it is, but doesn't explain why it is wrong.
If you're arguing for more privacy but you're participating in removing privacy, why isn't that hypocritical and makes the argument for privacy weaker from that person?
I agree that it's off-topic to the discussion as a whole, for this particular submission, as it doesn't argue against the content of the article but rather talks about how the content is hosted.
It does not make the argument weaker, that's the point. To think otherwise is a fallacy.
If someone writes that it is healthier to stop smoking, but then someone finds out that the author is a heavy smoker, does that make smoking somehow ok?
If you're arguing for more privacy but you're participating in removing privacy, why isn't that hypocritical and makes the argument for privacy weaker from that person?
I agree that it's off-topic to the discussion as a whole, for this particular submission, as it doesn't argue against the content of the article but rather talks about how the content is hosted.