Me neither. In the 2000s, Tor did something similar (a "what Tor can't do" page) and prominent linked to it on the front page, which definitely improved the pro

Me neither. In the 2000s, Tor did something similar (a "what Tor can't do" page) and prominent linked to it on the front page, which definitely improved the project's reputation with a coterie of infosec professionals. It might not have helped with wider adoption though. People would send me the link saying "Look at all of these bad things about Tor", and it would be links to Tor explanatory pages. It was around that time that I realised that when trying to give people an intuition for what software many Internet professionals trust, the list of "green flags" I identified was, in fact, the exact opposite of what the majority might guess as being good signs. "Large list of attractive sounding features" vs "Lists problems with the tool as prominently as benefits" ; "Sold and marketed by a large well-known company" vs "Developed by a small, volunteer team" ; "Free to download" vs "Costs money"; "Modern, professionally-designed website" vs "Looks like it was built in 1997", etc, etc.