Grammarly

Sample caveat first: the top-voted comments come from Hacker News threads about (a) Harper, Automattic's open-source grammar checker, and (b) browser-extension security — so Grammarly appears largely as the reference incumbent, not always the sole subject. A clear picture still emerges. POSITIVE: English-as-a-second-language users call it 'absolutely essential'; a dyslexic user relied on it for years because it catches errors he 'can't see even reading 10 times'; even the commenter who was 'fed up' enough to instantly install Harper concedes 'I still feel like grammarly does a better job.' NEGATIVE: (1) Product direction — its 'increasing focus on LLMs' and 'insistence on rewriting sentences in more verbose ways' is described as removing personality and making human text 'read like AI text.' (2) Privacy — one user read the terms only after paying: uploading content grants Grammarly a 'nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free... transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license' to User Content; another maps the architecture ('the extension sends that input back to Grammarly' for analysis), and a third frames such tools as 'cloud-connected keyloggers' — while conceding Windows' typing/inking and many mobile keyboards behave the same. (3) Competitive pressure — users are actively trialing Harper and want an open-source, LLM-based, multilingual checker; one notes 'Both Grammarly and Harper only support English.' Net: capability trust is high; trust in data handling and AI-era feature creep is low among this technical audience.

No aggregate ratings were found for this product during the last harvest.