I had already come to the conclusion that this company has too much controversy and that I didn’t want the phone. So I was already thinking this approach.
I’m expressing my skepticism about the claims made in the article. The article appears to be biased because of the device being marketed to conservatives and of the recent other phones like the freedom phone like you mentioned. As an independent, I strive to approach information critically and avoid falling for political biases or bad faith opinions.
MIT didn’t own or possess the hardware or software necessary to make any comprehensive claims about the device, nor did their experts.
While none of the experts I spoke with had yet been able to test the phone or read its code, because the company hasn’t provided access, the evidence available suggests Unplugged will fall wildly short of what’s promised.
Despite this, they attempted to present investor pitches from Unplugged as factual evidence for their speculative hypotheses about the hardware and software.
Just look how they put “promises more than it could possibly deliver”. They have not even touched the hardware and are already making negative statements without any facts of knowing the device’s capabilities at that time of writing the article.
“MIT Technology Review obtained Prince’s investor presentation for the “RedPill Phone,” which promises more than it could possibly deliver.”
It’s true that Unplugged continued with some of this investor marketing approach even after releasing the phone. However, there was no way to determine Unplugged’s strategy before their launch or whether they would alter their ideas for marketing after launch. Even then MIT then got information from an Unplugged spokesperson who reiterated that they were going to change their marketing messaging before release.
The selling points of Unplugged’s device, known as the UP Phone, are built on enormous promises of security and privacy that go beyond what any phone can accomplish. Buzzwords like “government-grade encryption” imply some kind of heightened protection, but—as the company never mentions—governments use the same standard encryption as the rest of us. When asked about the phrase by MIT Technology Review, Unplugged acknowledged “this messaging doesn’t resonate well with our community” and said they won’t use it moving forward.
Investor pitches are merely a means to attract investors to a product not the consumer, and I believe MIT knows this. So, to not point this out for the reader is odd.
I also want to emphasize that the article was published before the phone’s launch, so they could not objectively and accurately analyze its hardware. Which is what truly matters, not the marketing hype that Unplugged was trying to make.
At that point, it became evident that the article was more of an opinion piece rather than a total factual piece, even if some of the opinions presented were accurate about the marketing strategy after the fact.
MIT’s well-established reputation doesn’t guarantee objectivity or accuracy. It’s possible for even well-established institutions to be corrupted or present baseless opinions or facts in favor of a particular point. This happens daily, as seen in food studies conducted at Harvard and other institutions.
That’s why you need more than one report to make a factual conclusion about any product or paper. You must be open to hearing both sides, even those considered non-factual. Even experts can make mistakes, and the experts they rely on may also be mistaken. That’s why you don’t need to be an “expert” to see beyond a bubble when things are skewed in favor of a certain idea or philosophy. If you only relied on experts for everything, there would be no progress. Even experts need their egos challenged at times, as they can’t always be right.
Nothing should be taken at face value, even well-established institutions.
So, finally, I’ll just say that the article did have some valid points. I was merely pointing out the parts where I perceived inherent bias and where I didn’t entirely agree with the approach. That is why I said “one issue”. I didn’t say I didn’t agree with some points made. I just didn’t see the sense in me stating them, and that is my mistake. As it seems, you think I didn’t perceive any good out of the article, which is wrong. I just think the opinions were presented in a biased way.
So, to conclude, this is all I can gather: there was no concrete evidence presented regarding the apps, hardware, or software. Which I was really hoping to see from the article. But they were right about the marketing even if it was presented in a bias tone.
Not necessarily true. Everything discussed, created and designed is rooted in a principle, philosophy, or political ideology, which all intertwine. Even if you don’t believe it. However, that’s a rabbit hole I’d rather avoid, as we could discuss it for hours. In my opinion, politics is not a suitable topic for discussion because it’s akin to a sport, and no one truly emerges victorious in the end. Usually, only one team and their ideas prevail, and if you don’t subscribe to them, you’re not considered part of that group.
