Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a straw man. Nobody says you should implicitly trust Google, the second line in my comment talks about stopping knee-jerk reactions. People here started ranting about Google without even seeing what the actual product is, which is pretty much the definition of knee-jerk. I wouldn't mind people criticizing it if it's valid criticism, but this is just talking for the sake of talking.
Asking why we should trust a privacy related product from Google is legitimate. You are assuming that everyone will comprehend the trust model at a glance the way you do, but this is not so. Your argument seems to be that people shouldn't state their opinions, but should instead do silent research until they come to what you think is the obvious conclusion. That isn't how social discussions work.
StavrosK wanted "valid criticism" and not "kneejerk reactions"; I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what he meant.
Perhaps it is a fact in our social environment that one cannot expect people to read more than the link title before making claims in comments, much less reading the FAQ (at https://uproxy.org/), but I wish it were not so.