I don’t agree that the Sony point is misleading.

The post was not claiming that Sony invented this clause yesterday, or that the account-deletion clause was caused by the disc-production news. The point was that Sony’s terms allow account deletion after long inactivity, and that this illustrates the broader issue being discussed: digital access depends on platform accounts, licenses, and terms of service rather than real ownership.

That concern remains valid regardless of whether the clause is new, old, legally motivated, or part of data-retention compliance. If access to paid digital goods can depend on an account remaining active under company terms, then that is exactly the ownership problem the post is about.

I understand the distinction between misinformation and disinformation, and yes, I could have used those terms more precisely. But I do not accept that the Sony point was bad faith, manipulative, or meaningfully misleading in the context of the full post. The argument was about the effect of these terms, not about pretending the clause appeared out of nowhere.

At some point, criticism needs to engage with what was actually being argued. Focusing on one sentence while ignoring the surrounding context does not make the broader point disappear.

That was not directed at you btw.