The commenter started by saying they didn't see any downsides. Someone replied referring to specific downsides which impacted them (""use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"). Then the commenter said downsides don't matter because they can be used to argue against any change. That's a different argument than where they started.
That's not the comment I replied to. I replied to the comment where they offered no argument for why someone else's downside was invalid, instead opting to say that it's better to not let downsides prevent action. The lack of argument implied they didn't have a response, which I sought to confirm.
