[JohnFen]

> I have long wondered about the market size for privacy-focused apps.

The real problem is how to trust that a "privacy-focused" app is actually privacy-focused. You certainly can't take the publisher's word for it.

The only safe stance is to withhold as much personal information from as much software and services as possible.

[pesus]

Even if they were initially trustworthy, it's surely only a matter of time before they start wanting/needing to make (more) money and start abandoning their principles in pursuit of profit.

[neuralRiot]

Or the company is sold to a big corp that doesn’t give a dammn about or privacy or one whose goal is to actually get the data.

[OkayPhysicist]

If a company wanted to, they absolutely could include something along the lines of "If we violate the terms of this privacy policy, we owe all affected users $1000" in their Terms of Service. Pointing a gun at their own head to prove that they're serious. Companies don't do this, because they are cowards.

[andy99]

That is gimmicky and would be an extremely low trust signal.

[OkayPhysicist]

How is that a low trust signal? It's grounds to sue. Crank the number up to the limit of small claims in whatever jurisdiction you're based in.

If it was legal to say "If I break this oath, you can fucking shoot me" in a contract, I'd suggest that. The entire point of the exercise is "we promise do the right thing, and to keep us honest we have set up a system by which you can destroy us if we violate that promise".

Corporations can't swear on their life, as they have no life to offer. They can swear on their cash, and by such their ongoing existence.

[asveikau]

> The real problem is how to trust that a "privacy-focused" app is actually privacy-focused

I think the real problem is actually that legislative bodies will make privacy focused apps illegal. California AB 1043 is an example of what can happen.