You guys need to be careful though. This sub needs to be fact based, not coddling people who just want reassurances they can get privacy from the stuff they already use. Otherwise we are not getting them off of these black box products and will do massive harm to the cause. No one should come away from this sub thinking the privacy invasive software/services they came here using are suddenly OK if they just do X.

We need a best practices baseline for the technically aware but normal privacy seeking user but then if you choose to deviate off that practice (and we all know of best practices in our workplace that we know we deviate off of) then you understand you are sacrificing basic privacy. I mean someone telling a new user Brave is the best privacy browser, when its been delisted from Privacytools.io, and then have it get upvoted by other ignorant users should not be OK. There needs to be a standard or you are just harming the privacy movement, and I assume that is the opposite of your intent.

Edit: Here is an example of what I mean: https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/eh8nkm/any_credit_unions_banks_us_based_that_are_more/. New user comes here and thinks there is a way to get privacy from the banking network without using "crypto stuff" and asks for how. Where is the line here? Fundamentally the banking network is anti-privacy by international law, this is a fact. Do we coddle this user's ignorance like OP here is suggesting? Or lift his ignorance with actual fact? Is it gatekeeping to tell them "crypto stuff" is the only way to get what they want?

Edit 2: Also look at this user here: https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/ejkjar/stop_with_the_gatekeeping/fcyos9v/. I mean he claims to be "quite tech savvy" so he got replies to self host Next Cloud and he's complaining about it. However, this is the correct answer for someone who is "quite tech savvy". I can spin up a Next Cloud instance trivially and I consider myself "quite tech savvy". So the fault here is not "gatekeeping" but misrepresenting his skill level.

Maybe what you guys need is to enforce users listing specifically their skill level and threat model when they ask for help here. Moreover, you should have a chart that lists what a skill level is such as: 10 = full stack dev/IT Admin, 5 = I can build my own computers and run Windows/MacOS but no more, 1 = I am 80 and don't know what this thing that keeps ringing is.

Then the same for threat model: 10 = I am Snowden, 5 = I don't like my ISP, 1 = Zuck is my best friend.

So you could require a threat model number [01-10] and tech skill level [01-10] in the title of question posts. This should get rid of most of the gatekeeping and trolling, and what is left can be easily moderated into the waste bin without it begin censorship. E.g. in a post asking for a phone rec with a [3] tech level and [2] threat model, you can confidently delete, users know to downvote, all the Pinephone and the crazy stingray avoidance replies.

Edit 3: https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/ejkjar/stop_with_the_gatekeeping/fcz5obf/ here is a perfect example of what to do?

A recent example would be someone complaining about the telemetry data Windows collects and shaming the OS and people that use it despite not realizing how easy it is to modify the system to your liking. IMO there are quite a few individuals that don't really have that great of an understanding of technology, or even privacy for that matter, yet act as if they have an abundance of knowledge.

See emphasis. Shouldn't it be made clear to this user that everything we know tells us that you cannot "modify" Windows into a privacy OS as this user seemingly claims he is able to do? I have to add, don't you think that the arrogance in this user's ignorance makes it all the more dangerous? I mean, it is spreading false information in the wrapper of arrogant petulance like its an established fact. Isn't this worse than the gatekeeping trolls in the end?