I think also literally, independent of the cheeky tone.

Where it lost me was:

>RSS is used to syndicate NEWS and by killing it Google can control the media. XSLT is used worldwide by multiple government sites. Google are now trying to control LEGISLATION. With these technologies removed what is stopping Google?

I mean yes Google lobbies, and certainly can lobby for bad things. And though I personally didn't know much of anything about XSLT, I from reading a bit about it I certainly am ready to accept the premise that we want it. But... is Google lobbying for an XSLT law? Does "control legislation" mean deprecate a tool for publishing info on government sites?

I actually love the cheeky style overall, would say it's a brilliant signature style to get attention, but I think this implying this is tied to a campaign to control laws is rhetorical overreach even by its own intentionally cheeky standards.

I think the reason you're considering it rhetorical overreach is because you're taking it seriously. If the author doesn't actually mind the removal of XSLT support (i.e. possibly rues its removal, but understands and accepts the reasons), then it's really a perfectly fine way to just be funny.

It's not. It would be an insidious way to misrepresent the positions actually held by real people instead of caricatures.

> Does "control legislation" mean deprecate a tool for publishing info on government sites?

I believe the intended meaning, in context, is "... for publishing the literal text of laws on government sites".

Right, my quote and your clarification are saying the same thing (at least that's what I had in mind when I wrote that).

But that leaves us back where we started because characterizing that as "control the laws" is an instance of the the rhetorical overreach I'm talking about, strongly implying something like literal control over the policy making process.

Laws that are designed to help you but you can't easily access, or laws that are designed to control/restrict you and that get shoved in your face: once you manage "consumption" of laws, you can push your agenda too.

At least, this is how I read that part.

I agree that you would have to believe something like that to make sense of what it's implying. But by the same token, that very contention is so implausible that that's what makes it rhetorical overreach.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that anyone's access to published legislation would be threatened by its deprecation.

This is probably the part where someone goes "aha, exactly! That's why it's okay to be deprecated!" Okay, but the point was supposed to be what would a proponent of XSLT mean by this that wouldn't count as them engaging in rhetorical overreach. Something that makes the case against themselves ain't it.

> actually love the cheeky style overall

Also towards the bottom of the site:

> Tell your friends and family about XSLT.

It's hard enough telling them to also get off Instagram and Whatsapp and switch to Signal to maintain privacy. I'm going to have a hard time explaining what XSLT is!