Toumal

No, I don't. This is an editorial, and is clearly labeled as such. By definition, editorials have opinions. The CBC tried to call theirs objective, and news, though, so you should look elsewhere.

Saying that there are options is not the same as saying what the options are, and recommending a service. This is where your argument falls flat.

Mike, that's not how this works. Apple claims that data from water damaged phones cannot be extracted at all. That's a statement of fact, and incorrect. It's demonstrably false. Data can be recovered from water damaged phones, most of the time. Not always, but in the majority of cases. That's a fact. Not an opinion. It is demonstrably true. Apple is deleting comments that state this factual truth, keeps comments that are incorrect, and bans accounts that keep posting the truth. This is not about whether you are allowed which options exist, or name stores, or anything like that. The mere mention that options EXIST is verboten. You are doing mental gymnastics to justify your own opinion. Both are wrong, your opinion and your trying to find some angle to invalidate the truth. It's not a problem that you write your opinion in an editorial, and it's your right to be wrong about things. What is not ok is for you to stubbornly ignore facts, and use strawman arguments to attack points that have never been raised in the first place, i.e. the claim that Apple's repair department would somehow have to do these repairs themselves. This is about Apple supressing the fact that many water damaged phones can have their data extracted. NOBODY was saying that Apple should offer this service themselves. They should simply stop branding people who do this successfully every day as liars.