<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dylan-m</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s OpenMedia in a nutshell. They definitely aren&amp;#x27;t alone in this category, but I find them very frustrating. They mean well and I largely agree with them, but by agreeing with them I also seem to be agreeing with their nuance-free tabloid version of activism. I&amp;#x27;ve somehow found myself on their mailing list a few times in the past and felt a strong sense of relief each time I have unsubscribed.</text><parent_chain><item><author>RickS</author><text>Good idea, bad approach. &amp;quot;Your phone isn&amp;#x27;t safe at the border&amp;quot; might be a hard fact but it&amp;#x27;s nonetheless an intentionally divisive expression of that sentiment. It&amp;#x27;s ambiguous, fearmongering.... facts can be clickbait, and this is one such case.&lt;p&gt;If the ads said &amp;quot;You can be legally compelled to X, even if Y. Learn more about your airport rights at www.url.com&amp;quot; then it would be much less objectionable IMO.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t get why campaigns keep making this mistake. Take the freaking high road. Imagine the mind of your opposition, and accomodate the low-hanging complaints they&amp;#x27;re going to have. Craft a message that&amp;#x27;s maximally agreeable to the people who disagree, while maintaining accuracy.&lt;p&gt;Weasels on both sides here, IMO.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Vancouver Airport blocking ads with information on travellers’ privacy rights</title><url>https://globalnews.ca/news/5203960/yvr-rejects-ads/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sithadmin</author><text>&amp;gt;If the ads said &amp;quot;You can be legally compelled to X, even if Y. Learn more about your airport rights at www.url.com&amp;quot; then it would be much less objectionable IMO.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s &amp;#x27;less objectionable&amp;#x27; because it&amp;#x27;s bordering on bootlicking, and could even read as a tacit endorsement of the status quo.</text><parent_chain><item><author>RickS</author><text>Good idea, bad approach. &amp;quot;Your phone isn&amp;#x27;t safe at the border&amp;quot; might be a hard fact but it&amp;#x27;s nonetheless an intentionally divisive expression of that sentiment. It&amp;#x27;s ambiguous, fearmongering.... facts can be clickbait, and this is one such case.&lt;p&gt;If the ads said &amp;quot;You can be legally compelled to X, even if Y. Learn more about your airport rights at www.url.com&amp;quot; then it would be much less objectionable IMO.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t get why campaigns keep making this mistake. Take the freaking high road. Imagine the mind of your opposition, and accomodate the low-hanging complaints they&amp;#x27;re going to have. Craft a message that&amp;#x27;s maximally agreeable to the people who disagree, while maintaining accuracy.&lt;p&gt;Weasels on both sides here, IMO.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Vancouver Airport blocking ads with information on travellers’ privacy rights</title><url>https://globalnews.ca/news/5203960/yvr-rejects-ads/</url></story>