privacy

It's really simple.

It is: Either we can trust them or we can't.

You keep insisting that we technically don't know. That is an empirical approach, perfectly suited for empirical contexts.

Practically, this service targets a market where it is expected that you provide some evidence that you're serious and reliable. That makes it a rationalist context, where deduction dictates a base assumption in absence of truth to the contrary.

If they aren't showing evidence, the either don't understand the claim they're making and why they can be expected to back it up, or they have no actual evidence to show. In either case, pointing back to the baseline is valid and requires no further proof.

So practically "they're insecure" is not a claim. It's a reminder, an assertion of the default position, comparable to "he's not qualified to perform surgery" or "he cannot handle a firearm responsibly": true by default, until proven otherwise.

Where are the pedantics?

In your insistence on epistemological uncertainty beyond practical implications. You're arguing about formalism, which is the textbook definition of pedantry.

Lol I'm getting shit on for being reasonable and pointing to the facts that no one in here knows

You're not being reasonable. You're being stubborn in your refusal to acknowledge the differing context.

To be fair, I want proof of claims from that site before I would trust it either but I'm not gonna throw it into the pit just because it made a claim.

What pit? The pit of "can not be trusted" that it was born into and never climbed out of?

Or are you fine with people running around saying shit and spreading unverified claims they don't know or understand?

In a pure, empirical context? No, of course not.

In a rationalist context with a clearly defined base assumption, with the claim running counter to that base? No, of course not.

But asserting that base assumption isn't a claim. It's the default position. So yes, I am fine with people saying that the "true until proven otherwise" assertion that has not been proven otherwise is still true.