Artykul <https://artykul.org/>

I doubt it is this one. A quick read of that page and there's a few features that immediately had me assuming data would be synced to the cloud.

The cloud syncing stuff says "if you want", which implies it's opt-in behavior.

But it has the "all articles are available offline and without an internet connection" exact quote in the landing page, and nothing else seems to do.

Searching for "all articles are available offline and without an internet connection" (with the quotes) in your favorite search engine might help.

It's the third result for me, after Rachel By the Bay and... your comment.

I feel like this happens every time we see one of her blog posts - she tries very hard to not provide any kind of specific information about anything she is writing about. Maybe it is to stop fanboys from harassing her when she trashes their favorite product or company, but it is the same technique used by people who are just making up stories.

> Maybe it is to stop fanboys from harassing her when she trashes their favorite product or company,

I assumed the opposite: she knows that she has readers who will go trash on the developers of whatever random app she happens to be criticizing and doesn't want to be responsible for inciting an internet mob.

In this case she provided enough information that anyone who was seriously concerned about their feed reader could easily find out if it was theirs—searching for the quoted text turns up the guilty RSS reader, her post, and a rip-off of the guilty reader which re-uses their marketing blurb.

That's easy enough for someone who's motivated to find out if they're safe, but maybe not enough for a mob to form?

It's not hard to find out which one it is, though. I don't want to name names but the post gives a clear hint.

> I don't want to name names

Why??

WHATS THAT ONE WORD!!?

You know, that character trait for DnD that determines how gullible your character is? LIE ability was it? Row 3 d20 to LIE check?!

Why not name names? Who are you trying to protect, and why do they need protection from their own misdeeds, and why don't their users and everyone else deserve to know? They don't respect people's privacy, but deserve to have their own corporate privacy respected for some reason?

It's possible that it's more of a personal ethic and a view towards their own actions (something like, "I don't disparage others") rather than that they view this company as deserving protection.

The proliferation of "I don't disparage others" is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Because I don't have all the facts and I can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I think there needs to be a balance between "if you really want to research this alleged invasion of privacy then you should look here" and "that guy is bad, everybody go harass him". I haven't seen the logs and I haven't read the company's website in detail, so I'm not going to point the finger at someone for what could be a misunderstanding.

Maybe the website does point out this behavior. Maybe it's a badly configured script. Maybe it's as bad as described. I certainly don't know and I'd rather not join an internet mob until I've done my due diligence.

> Because I don't have all the facts and I can't put the genie back in the bottle.

This is an amazing way to express an extremely important concept, one that unfortunately doesn't have enough representation on the internet. Kudos.

Agreed. I do it all the time; especially with previous employers, and their competitors.

I am often told What A Bad Boy I Am, because I won't tell.

I cry myself to sleep over it, every night.