So, what do you all think of this Tuta article?
1 Like
Disgusting.
10 Likes
Surface level analysis that reads like a fluff piece done because there is a large sector of people in the privacy community obsessed with degoogling.
2 Likes
Do you want to expand on that a bit?
I personally don’t like their rationale for not including GrapheneOS. I don’t know why they think like that but I’m inclined to say its a German thing than anything. A Google device not running anything Google within it is still a deGoogled phone. I can’t make sense of their rationalization.
2 Likes
Perhaps I should stop posting Tuta blog posts. It’s more and more not making sense. Only news of their tech updates or upgrades should be worthwhile.
4 Likes
eh its fine. There is obviously a large group of readers for this type of stuff.
Personally, I don’t blame Tuta for doing it. Proton, Windscribe etc all do these SEO marketing blog posts.
1 Like
There’s a growing consensus around these parts that sloppy blog posts and SEO marketing is equivalent to the company and their products and services being inferior too. I don’t but others see it that way.
So, the large group of readers are elsewhere, not here it would seem. Anyways, I don’t want to bring up the same discussion here again.
2 Likes
To me, that sentiment is misplaced. These companies are still trying to attract customers. Not everything they do is for their hardcore privacy base.
To me, this is post is for people who dislike google, more then people who are specifically focused on privacy.
3 Likes
But its also only makes sense to still be critical of these blog posts because they don’t always post the truth (in its entirety at least) and seem to downplay the inferior privacy and security of the things the talk about and consequently recommend or “recommend”. That’s poor judgement on their part too.
But yes, I do hear you.
2 Likes
That said, we must include one honorary mention: Graphene OS. Graphene OS is an Android OS that only runs on Google’s Pixel phones. But as the Android Source Tree for Google’s Pixels is no longer open source, the GrapheneOS team is looking to adapt the OS to other phones.
If you want to mention GrapheneOS but not include it in the review, at least get your facts right.
Another alternative Android OS is CalyxOS, which is a privacy-focused version of Android, but sandboxed Google apps can be optionally used. CalyxOS has hardened security and optional support for microG as a workaround for limited Google app compatibility. The Android OS offer a good balance between app compatibility and privacy, and can be installed on several phones.
Why even mention CalyxOS when it is basically dead?
@Tuta_Official At this point you are just embarrassing yourself with each new blog post
7 Likes
Fair criticism. Agree.
And I am only sharing here even though these are fluff pieces is to talk about and inform people and Tuta of them being simply put, terrible, with these posts and lack of proper research and exposition. Name and shame, basically. This is the privacy community - transparency and honest discussion is key to identifying and knowing the right things to use and buy.
4 Likes
I would assume Tuta is big enough to have someone who is a little bit more knowledgeable proof read these, but I guess they just pump out this slop without caring.
2 Likes
Clearly these blog posts bust those assumptions. They did for me. This is just sloppy work, I agree.
1 Like
Having seen a couple of these Tuta blog threads on here, it’s starting to feel like they’re being re-posted here as some kind of engagement ragebait.
1 Like
Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree. For opinion topics like this it would improve the average quality of articles being posted to Privacy Guides if Tutanota’s were disallowed.
2 Likes
IMO, it would be better to stop sharing these slop articles since there is clearly no value to them.
I definitely don’t think it’s unreasonable to hold it against a company when they promote this kind of snake oil. They claim to provide privacy with their services but are simultaneously evidently incapable of any remotely informed evaluation of the privacy of other products and services.
7 Likes
My rationalization was name and shame. But I can stop sharing them. Can’t promise for others who don’t know any better to share them still.
But mandating a ban on posting content from privacy companies PG recommends is not a good look and is only censorship. In this case, I know we have a good reason to stop but I don’t want sharing blog posts to show a company’s incompetence be banned.
7 Likes
My post was my opinion, as I clearly indicated. Moderation decisions carry an Official Notice label and colour.
I’m not suggesting a ban, and I disagree that others are likely to keep sharing these articles if you stop sharing them.
2 Likes
Yes, I see. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
I disagree but why don’t we wait and find out together. Hope you’re right.
1 Like