The article raises a good point, but in a hamfisted and clickbaity way.
The underlying story is that there is no story: the author recorded a sensitive conversation and sent it to Otter. Otter sent him a survey in response and referenced the title of the recording. The author grew concerned that his recordings had been shared with China. Otter scrambled to respond, and eventually reassured the author that his recordings had never been shared with any foreign governments or law enforcement agencies.
The underlying point, that using transcription services puts journalists' sources at risk, is well taken. But the story unfairly tries to make it sound like Otter has a problem, when the author is really just using Otter as a vehicle for their story.
The underlying story is that there is no story: the author recorded a sensitive conversation and sent it to Otter. Otter sent him a survey in response and referenced the title of the recording. The author grew concerned that his recordings had been shared with China. Otter scrambled to respond, and eventually reassured the author that his recordings had never been shared with any foreign governments or law enforcement agencies.
The underlying point, that using transcription services puts journalists' sources at risk, is well taken. But the story unfairly tries to make it sound like Otter has a problem, when the author is really just using Otter as a vehicle for their story.