Archive talk:How to stay away from Google and other evil tech giants: Difference between revisions
(Why not inform readers and let them decide for themselves?) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
--[[User:Paula|Paula]] ([[User talk:Paula|talk]]) 07:51, 13 July 2022 (CEST) | --[[User:Paula|Paula]] ([[User talk:Paula|talk]]) 07:51, 13 July 2022 (CEST) | ||
:That’s fair enough if you want to control the advice, but | :That’s fair enough if you want to control the advice, but concealing the pitfalls, shortcomings & controversy page from the readers is a bit much. Unless you’re a Signal investor, you gain nothing from suppressing critics. It would add to the credibility of your work if you would expose the research of tool critics. If you’re confident in your assessment, then there’s no reason to hide [https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/issues/779 the bug 779 article], which gives the most comprehensive analysis of Signal’s issues all in one place. Why not trust your reader’s ability to judge for themselves? [[User:Fedininja|Fedininja]] ([[User talk:Fedininja|talk]]) | ||
Revision as of 20:18, 20 July 2022
For editors: This is NOT a normal wiki article, but a list of endorsements by me. You can make minor edits, correct errors and falsehoods, but for major edits like adding or removing a recommendation or completely rewriting a section, please discuss it here first. --Paula (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2022 (CEST)
- That’s fair enough if you want to control the advice, but concealing the pitfalls, shortcomings & controversy page from the readers is a bit much. Unless you’re a Signal investor, you gain nothing from suppressing critics. It would add to the credibility of your work if you would expose the research of tool critics. If you’re confident in your assessment, then there’s no reason to hide the bug 779 article, which gives the most comprehensive analysis of Signal’s issues all in one place. Why not trust your reader’s ability to judge for themselves? Fedininja (talk)