> Instead of producing a functional alternative Author clearly points to a (more) functional alternative—their local group with volunteers verifying all the re

> Instead of producing a functional alternative Author clearly points to a (more) functional alternative—their local group with volunteers verifying all the reports (with 90%+ false positive rates, even before malicious interference, which is strong evidence that this app is probably worse than useless for anyone taking it seriously; after all, the potential number of real reports is bounded by rare events, while the potential number of malicious fake reports is effectively unbounded). Author and others also offered to help through collaboration with existing groups or through open source audits and code contributions, both of which were promptly refused. Sure, author didn’t offer a functional alternative in the form of a P2P free-for-all app. Probably because that’s a not viable strategy if you actually want to help.