[wolverine876]

> For some people's threat models that isn't good enough, but for the vast majority of people—people who aren't being pursued by state intelligence agencies but who are squeamish about how much data a company like Google collects—a pinky promise from Brave or Mullvad is good enough.

Who are you to say it's good enough (and ridicule people who disagree)? We don't have too much evidence of it, because they have very few options and of course most people are not informed and lack the expertise to understand the issues (a good situation for regulation). At one point lots of people used lead paint and were fine with it; they would have told us.

> Yes, at some point if you're going to interface with other humans you will eventually just have to trust their word.

There's technology, such as the authorization tokens used by Brave, that reduces that risk. Of course, no risk can be complete eliminated but that doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce it.

[lolinder]

> say it's good enough (and ridicule people who disagree)?

I'm not ridiculing anyone, I explicitly say that for some people's threat models it isn't good enough.

[wolverine876]

You said that people who agreed with you are,

> people who aren't being pursued by state intelligence agencies

That implies that the only valid reason to disagree is if you are pursued by state intelligence agencies. Obviously it's ridiculous to think that you are.

[salad-tycoon]

Well, these days a lot of people are actually pursued. You know like parents, social activists, various religious movements. It’s not just only the Dr. Evils of the world anymore.