This piece is so full of opinion-loaded words it just becomes untrustworthy. In fact, the choice of words sounds suspiciously like those corona denier articles floating around, expecting the audience to just eat up their words and copy the intended opinion. Now I believe the EFF to at least be fighting for a good cause (though its methods are sometimes criticised), but articles like these make it harder to believe.
I see that the central claim is correct (the formerly free ink plan now indeed costs $0.99 per month on HP's website). However, had they taken a more fact-based, and less opinion-based, approach to writing the article, I would actually have more than skimmed it.
EDIT: My main frustration is that I expected "us" to do better than the manipulative text that large companies continuously put out. I was disappointed.
Which parts are not factual? I think you’re talking about the style with which the article is written. I found it quite amusing and they made what could have been a very dry article engaging, but each according to their own...
I'm indeed referring to the writing style, not necessarily the content. If it was meant to be amusing: sure, to each their own, but apparently not for me. :)
I see that the central claim is correct (the formerly free ink plan now indeed costs $0.99 per month on HP's website). However, had they taken a more fact-based, and less opinion-based, approach to writing the article, I would actually have more than skimmed it.
EDIT: My main frustration is that I expected "us" to do better than the manipulative text that large companies continuously put out. I was disappointed.