> Your argument seems to be that people shouldn't state their opinions, but should instead do silent research until they come to what you think is the obvious conclusion.
StavrosK wanted "valid criticism" and not "kneejerk reactions"; I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what he meant.
Perhaps it is a fact in our social environment that one cannot expect people to read more than the link title before making claims in comments, much less reading the FAQ (at https://uproxy.org/), but I wish it were not so.
StavrosK wanted a narrow definition of valid criticism.
Narrowly confining ourselves to a technical analysis of ignores that there are other dimensions to how people think about technology, and the perception that Google has created about its trustworthiness is one of them.
It's not as if we are going to explore that topic in a one-time thread and never say anything about it again. It is going to keep being discussed as related issues come up.
StavrosK wanted "valid criticism" and not "kneejerk reactions"; I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what he meant.
Perhaps it is a fact in our social environment that one cannot expect people to read more than the link title before making claims in comments, much less reading the FAQ (at https://uproxy.org/), but I wish it were not so.