Google are being depicted as the bad guys (devil) in the original comment, and the person you're replying to was advocating for Google's stated position of trying to improve user security. They were being an advocate for the devil. Is this not pretty much a perfect use of the saying?
> why not accept attribution to yourself?
Because this is Google's claim, being repeated here by their advocate.
> If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".
The counterargument was the very first comment saying that the changes are really about adblocking.
Google's statement on Manifest V3:
> Manifest V3 aims to be the first step in our platform vision to improve the privacy, security, and performance of extensions. Along with the platform changes, we are working to give users more understanding and control over what extensions are capable of. The changes will take several years to complete.
Google are being depicted as the bad guys (devil) in the original comment, and the person you're replying to was advocating for Google's stated position of trying to improve user security. They were being an advocate for the devil. Is this not pretty much a perfect use of the saying?
> why not accept attribution to yourself?
Because this is Google's claim, being repeated here by their advocate.
> If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".
The counterargument was the very first comment saying that the changes are really about adblocking.
Google's statement on Manifest V3:
> Manifest V3 aims to be the first step in our platform vision to improve the privacy, security, and performance of extensions. Along with the platform changes, we are working to give users more understanding and control over what extensions are capable of. The changes will take several years to complete.