And it's even more plausible this is just a marketing play to build hype. Take, for example, you just made some new super-pathogen in your basement lab. It could kill everyone on the planet. This is obviously pretty dangerous, so do you:
A) silently dispose of it and hope nobody else ever makes the mistake of creating it.
or
B) keep it in the freezer and hold a press release about how you made it but it's too dangerous to share any details.
Comments
Ah, the old "it's too dangerous to release" marketing move. Why even tell us about it?
For the extra dollars they'll obtain when it is no longer too dangerous to release.
Not everything is a conspiracy. It is very plausible they're speaking genuinely.
And it's even more plausible this is just a marketing play to build hype. Take, for example, you just made some new super-pathogen in your basement lab. It could kill everyone on the planet. This is obviously pretty dangerous, so do you:
A) silently dispose of it and hope nobody else ever makes the mistake of creating it.
or
B) keep it in the freezer and hold a press release about how you made it but it's too dangerous to share any details.
No, it's not more plausible.
I am utterly impressed by the logic of this argument.
That would require a for-profit corporate entity to be motivated by public safety. I can suspend my disbelief to some degree, but that's too far.
This isn't the first time someone has spoken like this. It won't be the last. It's 100% marketing.
Based on what proof?
I guess based on 2000 years of commerce and marketing experience from people without an ounce of empathy.
I have a bridge I'm selling....