For someone who’s a prolific contributor here, you can’t be serious asking for “examples” when there are plenty?
In this reply, Daniel says “let’s hope [NextDNS devs] reply to my emails” and tells me to shut up because he thinks I am dishonest “All of this can’t be verified” (for something that was literally on our Twitter) and that I demand things, and that when I bring my expertise, I am just “arguing from authority”, and that I prove why a “single integer counter” wasn’t enough to prevent attacks and abuse across a world-wide network of DNS servers, because to Daniel, it was totally possible to do so (of course didn’t have to present any proofs).
The scorn was unreal.
What kind of Orwellian logic is this when you yourself admit “EVERYONE has bias”?
Not everything is “researched”, is it? For instance, the section on “Anonymous routing” looks like it was put up haphazardly. How does one research and come to a strawman conclusion that Just like other decentralized platforms, adding features is more complex for developers than on a centralized platform?
This is a high bar for contributors to clear (when it is demonstrable that the website itself doesn’t meet it). Instead the point should be to encourage more contributions. Though I understand bikeshedding is an inevitable outcome when that happens. Either way, communities like Wikipedia (which encourage contributions) have the right model for a knowledge resource. PrivacyGuides shouldn’t be run like a Journal, imo.
No tips from me, but I sincerely hope the team themselves are thinking about improving on this criteria, now that they’re aware of it.
I’ve heard it from two other FOSS project leads in the privacy space that the bias against non-Western projects here is overt and overwhelming.