>claiming that everyone who chooses differently is selling quackery

We never say that anywhere, but thank you for the heads up.

> The same way I could claim you are selling quackery because you refuse to implement an additional security-in-depth layer.

Indeed, you have all the rights to say so, but we both enjoy the liberties to differ on what "security-in-depth" is.

> We never say that anywhere, but thank you for the heads up.

Well, it reads that way, and you asked for feedback.

Thank you, appreciated that! I think the "quackery" part reads as too arrogant. Was not intention and I will make sure we get that rewritten.

Same paragraph has a mixture of E2EE and Encryption at rest topics which may confuse users. We'll separate that.

While I agree with the other comments about the implications of your "quackery" phrasing, I want to chime in and say that overall, I really appreciate that you wrote that page.

I think it's unusual to see a company basically say "here's why you might not want to use our product". The ones that do often come across as "here are our issues, but here's why they don't really matter and you should use us anyway". While some parts of the page do maybe seem to do a little of the latter (the "quackery" sections are a good example), the overall tone I get is "here is why we might not be a good fit for you", and I find that rather refreshing.

I'm sure some people will see your "take it or leave it" approach as user-hostile. And perhaps on some level it is. But in my opinion, it's far less user-hostile than hiding those choices/limitations in order to get signups, with the user then finding out about them later and having buyer's remorse.

So kudos for being up-front about it.

thanks for calling that out, and despite my criticism upthread I have to fully agree with this - the wording can be improved but this kind of documentation is great to have!