It can't both be redundant and be solved by moving one of the interfaces somewhere else. Either you meant to say it's not redundant and is needed but didn't list any reasons why you think this or your idea of simply moving the redundant interface elsewhere doesn't change the point made as it'd still be rudundant and not needed, just elsewhere.
> No true Scotsman? If the user needs to do this, they're automatically not a regular user, or what?
The "No true Scotsman" fallacy comes after redefining the group once a valid counterexample from the original group is defined. It's not a fallacy in itself just to claim a group has an attribute, the claim is still falsifiable and testable by bringing forth the counter case to why a non-developer needs or wants to use a separate settings UI for it. "non-devoloper" wording chosen instead of "regular user" particularly because the ability is still in the developer UI and maybe that'll make the claim about "regular users" a little more defined.
If this were disabling the ability for users to clear cookies for a single site I'd hard disagree but I'm wracking my brain to find a realistic case a non-developer user needs/wants to view and clear individual cookies instead of site based cookies or all cached objects for that specific page. It's seemingly by definition only useful when identifying and fixing bugs from reviewing the source/dev console logs and "clear the cookies for the specific site" is already seemingly rare enough for a user to be told to do by generic troubleshooting. If being told to do it by a developer or support agent the console is still there and again I think it's fair to say we are veering far from typical things that user cares to have in a settings UI vs where it is in the dev console.
> It can't both be redundant and be solved by moving one of the interfaces somewhere else. Either you meant to say it's not redundant [...]
I never said it was redundant. Perhaps you mixed me with someone else?
Regardless of how you call the fallacy, I think there still is one since the vagueness of the term "regular user" seems to implicitly define out the users that would need to access the cookie dialogue.
If the wording is switched to "non-developer", then I once again disagree with this conclusion. Non-developers should definitely retain the ability to view, edit and delete their cookies.
I view this mostly as a matter of power. Yes, non-developers won't be editing or deleting individual cookies most of the time. However, if a website starts misbehaving and attempts to seize control of some part of experience from the end user, the end user must have the ability to counter that.
Having the ability to delete and edit pieces of information stored by websites on the user agent is a crucial part of that. If you take this ability away, then you ever so slightly took control out of the hands of the end user. In the end, you are making the user powerless and submitting them under your control.
So move it somewhere where it makes more sense.
> Truly, editing/deleting individual cookies isn't something any regular user ever needs to do
No true Scotsman? If the user needs to do this, they're automatically not a regular user, or what?
Anyway, hard disagree.