Most of those regulations are not applicable to a website like that, but transparency is related here of course. Vids, pictures, chat bots and texts - should be disclosed, yes.
I disclosed monetisation at first place because that can actually bias what I recommend. On the other hand AI just helps me with drafting big texts and content, it does not make any decisions so in my head it looked like just another tool I've used during the development and I haven't really thought it's worth disclosing it.
Fair point though, I'll keep that in mind next time.
Okay, now thats a bug in both code and the content. Huge thanks for pointing it out. As mentioned in my previous comment the website does have "alternative to X" for some of European products, but it should not display these amongst US tools. Will fix that asap
I am actually eager to fix, not delete. Every claim is sourced so if a company finds any assessment wrong the first thing I want is them to show me and I will correct it asap. There were couple of cases already.
The removal is for other case tho. Some companies just don't want to be on the list. At some point keeping them there will not help anyone. The whole point of this website is to help people find good options, not pointing which is worse. My thought here is that no good product would claim for a removal anyway.
I will look for a way to work this around tho, as displaying something the company doesn't like might still be very useful for the users.
Thanks! So far there is only this page describing what can be listed and an email https://euvetted.com/request-listing
But more decent submission form is on the roadmap
Thank you!
Yes, "EU-Sovereign" and others are editorial labels. They should be treated more like "this is complete safe for EU" (or not safe) rather than "this is 100% made in EU". But I will think on the naming more as they are a bit misleading, I agree.
Okay I thought only us EU guys are trying to disconnect, nice to know that :)
I haven't made a deep research membership donation services yet, the only one that comes to my mind is https://en.liberapay.com/, it's French but it's hosted on AWS Ireland tho. No idea how good it is, never used any of these
Ha, fair and I won't pretend otherwise. The write-ups are AI-drafted. I'm one person covering everything and there is no real option to do it otherwise.
But the line I care about is this. The prose is AI, the facts aren't. Everything you see like ownership, cloud act exposure, hosting region, sub-processors, feature comparisons is verified manually.
And you are right that the tone needs to be fixed.
Looks like that got cut off mid-sentence :) Did you mean the list of tools on the homepage something missing from it, or hard to find? Let me know what you were after.
Agreed and good timing, because that page already exists, it's just not linked well. There's a full write-up at /insights/cloud-act-exposure (why it matters, who's exposed, the numbers across the directory) way more than the About page covers. The gap is exactly what you said: every "CLOUD Act" mention should point to it instead of assuming you'll go find it. I'll wire up the ⓘ link. Thanks.
Thank you, seems like a good find for me. Definitely will review it.
Hey! Sorry for replying that long. Thank you, that's a great find actually, listed it.
Good point. But I will move towards sketching/drafting the content only and finalising myself after the main gaps of the website are fixed
Most of those regulations are not applicable to a website like that, but transparency is related here of course. Vids, pictures, chat bots and texts - should be disclosed, yes.
I disclosed monetisation at first place because that can actually bias what I recommend. On the other hand AI just helps me with drafting big texts and content, it does not make any decisions so in my head it looked like just another tool I've used during the development and I haven't really thought it's worth disclosing it.
Fair point though, I'll keep that in mind next time.
Okay, now thats a bug in both code and the content. Huge thanks for pointing it out. As mentioned in my previous comment the website does have "alternative to X" for some of European products, but it should not display these amongst US tools. Will fix that asap
I am actually eager to fix, not delete. Every claim is sourced so if a company finds any assessment wrong the first thing I want is them to show me and I will correct it asap. There were couple of cases already.
The removal is for other case tho. Some companies just don't want to be on the list. At some point keeping them there will not help anyone. The whole point of this website is to help people find good options, not pointing which is worse. My thought here is that no good product would claim for a removal anyway.
I will look for a way to work this around tho, as displaying something the company doesn't like might still be very useful for the users.
These are in progress currently, thank you! As well as git services, i.e alternatives to github/gitlab
Thanks! So far there is only this page describing what can be listed and an email https://euvetted.com/request-listing But more decent submission form is on the roadmap
Hey. Thank you for mentioning that, will see if it fits in my list
Thank you! Yes, "EU-Sovereign" and others are editorial labels. They should be treated more like "this is complete safe for EU" (or not safe) rather than "this is 100% made in EU". But I will think on the naming more as they are a bit misleading, I agree.
Okay I thought only us EU guys are trying to disconnect, nice to know that :)
I haven't made a deep research membership donation services yet, the only one that comes to my mind is https://en.liberapay.com/, it's French but it's hosted on AWS Ireland tho. No idea how good it is, never used any of these
I will review it, saved it to my backlog. Thank you!
Maybe I got confused by their pricing strategy. Currently I see 3.99 per month if paying annually. I will take a closer look, noted. Thanks.
Not at all sir
If you mean this page https://euvetted.com/alternatives/hetzner than the first blue line means the product that we compare against, Hetzner in this case. In case if the base product is US the line is red like here https://euvetted.com/alternatives/aws
I've intentionally added alternative to X for some most obvious European products like Proton or Hetzner in this case.
Please let me know if either of these are confusing or do not make sense. Thanks!
Ha, fair and I won't pretend otherwise. The write-ups are AI-drafted. I'm one person covering everything and there is no real option to do it otherwise.
But the line I care about is this. The prose is AI, the facts aren't. Everything you see like ownership, cloud act exposure, hosting region, sub-processors, feature comparisons is verified manually.
And you are right that the tone needs to be fixed.
Looks like that got cut off mid-sentence :) Did you mean the list of tools on the homepage something missing from it, or hard to find? Let me know what you were after.
Agreed and good timing, because that page already exists, it's just not linked well. There's a full write-up at /insights/cloud-act-exposure (why it matters, who's exposed, the numbers across the directory) way more than the About page covers. The gap is exactly what you said: every "CLOUD Act" mention should point to it instead of assuming you'll go find it. I'll wire up the ⓘ link. Thanks.
Thank you!