Well maybe you're right. Since the author openly offered his contact information, maybe the best way to resolve the situation is to discuss the matter with him directly and privately. I wish you both success.
I understand that it is frustrating to you to feel that someone may have been inspired by some aspects of your project. However, I think it's important to consider a few things for perspective:
2. So what if this guy was inspired by your app? Who doesn't do research before implementing an idea?
3. Your most persuasive evidence--the header font--appears to be the most unpopular aspect of the app, judging by the comments, and so will probably be changed shortly, anyway.
4. The developer is not in direct competition with your project, as he didn't even code it for the same platform (yes, an iPad can browse the web, but yours was not, specifically, an iPad app).
I wouldn't be opposed to posting a dynamic list of feeds on the about page.
To answer your parenthetical question: not very well. Since articles are sorted based on the weight of their feed, and since I only show the first few articles for each topic, articles from feeds with lower weights may rarely appear. They will, however, contribute to the overall weight of the topic and force it into the top ten.
People don't comprehend how insecure the Internet is. They take for granted that their information will remain private unless they explicitly wish to share it publicly. This may be naive, but ideally this is how things ought to be.
The reason these issues have been at the forefront lately is that mainstream media has picked up the story. Facebook has, to use a cliche, reached critical mass. Everyone and their dog has a Facebook profile, so when something involves Facebook, even if it's a slightly more technical topic than usual, people are interested and want to understand.
Combined with other coincidental events, like Google being compromised by Chinese hackers, and people start thinking about it.
Interestingly, it's a popular viewpoint in the deaf community (at least here in the USA) that deafness is not a handicap at all and, in the opinion of a minority, is in fact an advantage over those who are hearing.
Aside from the obvious reasons, this is also great because it allows the deaf to work in a deaf-friendly work environment; everyone or most there probably sign.
Much of a deaf person's life is spent watching, in silence and isolation, as the hearing people around them communicate freely. Depending on the area, socializing a deaf family member can be a real challenge. Finding a job like this would be a huge help.
I think the most conspicuous spin on the site is repeatedly calling the browser "the most important piece of software on your computer." Google has made it very clear that they intend to move computer use off of the desktop and into the cloud.
Personally, though, I don't see a problem with it. They're right--the world is moving that direction. They're just smart enough to see it.
Um, why wouldn't they want to track traffic to their own website?
I don't think my mom will be looking at the variables in the query string. As for the actual information on the site, it's very even-handed and doesn't seem to favor one browser over another. If anything, Firefox--not Chrome--may be the center of attention more than any other.
Why the downvotes? It's a superficial glance at SQL injection fixes with little explanation or education. Just like you can't put a novel in a comic-strip, you can't explain SQL injection security with a single block of code.
Yes, I understand the business side. But I studied Computer Science in school. I take pride in my work, and I regard an expertly-forged piece of code as a work of art. It's not simply a means to an end, and, even if sometimes I complain a lot, I hope even my employer sees the benefit in my taking what I do so seriously.