Sorry, I must ask: What’s the basis for this pointed claim?
offtopic: "I like replying to trolls"
Oh well, then reply to my modmail from April?
Probably true only for the main website?
The CoI policy goes:
At the same time, accepting contributions from people with a conflict of interest can be necessary or highly beneficial for Privacy Guides and the community…
Though, it is still great that CoI contributions are prohibited for the team members and discouraged for everyone else (other participants).
The policy also goes:
Look for non-neutral language or poorly-sourced content
I find a bunch of non-neutral langauge in the VPN page: For instance, words like “premium” and “inexpensive”.
And:
cautious about accepting self-published sources, press releases, and other similar primary sources at face value
Plenty mention of audits that link straight to primary source but no mention of what those audits are about (ex: iVPN annual audits are mostly NOT of their VPN data plane)… to the point of appearing to market on behalf of the provider.
I had called out the VPN page for not meeting PG’s own bar before: Secure encryption and online anonymity are now at risk in Switzerland - #28 by ignoramous
Fanboism / sycophancy is another similar problem to tackle here, leading to fiefdoms that the gatekeepers guard relentlessly.
Not sure about “serious”, but yeah, agree with the rest. The participants are well-intentioned, well-informed, & generally nice.