Editing Talk:Flat Earth Clock App (section)

==Concerns about article tone==
I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very disappointed in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.

Why is "flat earthers" in quotation marks?

The entire second paragraph:

"The app serves a "clock" that tries (and fails) to show how day/night does progress on a Flat earth, and serves as a platform for content to reinforce science denial regarding everything we learned about our universe."

Is clearly incredibly biased, and not outlining any consumer rights whatsoever.

The third paragraph is also just criticism of the creator, as well as people who believe in the flat earth.

And whilst the last paragraph is the least biased, the "(no trial)", i would deem as unnecessary, and put there solely to find something else to hate about the app. Lastly, I don't think "despite being reported multiple times by several individuals, including myself of major breaches of security, privacy, wrong statements about collected data and breaches of EU and US regulations." should just be left there without any sources. Who is "myself"?

[[User:Mindlux |Mindlux]] [[User_talk:Mindlux|(talk)]] 07:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:I do agree the about the tone and lack of cited claims @[[User:Mindlux|Mindlux]]. This is the reason this article was marked and as a stub. I also see that someone did correctly mark it with a tone warning as well. 
:I do think the concerns in the consumer impact section are valid though (if properly backed up with sources) so the idea is that the notices notify users to address these issues and bring this article to a better standard.  [[User:Kostas|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas|talk]]) 15:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)