I do not like this kinda stuff:
> “If you're a whistleblower like Edward Snowden, or if you are a politician, or if you are a journalist who regularly deals with people at risk of deportation, or if you work regularly in countries with harsh, repressive governments… you will have a different threat model to someone who just wants privacy because they’re talking about intimate or personally important stuff,” says Muffett. In such extreme cases, Tufekci suggests you use Signal to get in touch with experts such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who can teach you the finer points of digital security.
> For the rest of us, the end-to-end encryption in WhatsApp is enough to keep our chats out of snoopers’ hands. Indeed, privacy invasion may not come from the NSA or security services, but the people in your life — if you want to keep your parents or siblings from seeing your messages, you don’t need a secure app so much as a PIN to unlock your phone.
This is not okay. This basically says, "yeah, if you're a huge weirdo with a target on your back, you may want to use Signal". And yet I use Signal to casually talk with my friends about movies and food. I'd like to think that there's strength in numbers, I'd hate for Signal to be, rather than protective, a big bullseye for politically dangerous people.
The continued attack on Tobias Boelter and The Guardian about this, as if they had committed an unconscionable crime, is extremely jarring when people then praise this article that says to kids "privacy invasion may not come from the NSA".
I don't like being considered an "extreme case" for taking effortless, cost-free precautions that have a nice side-effect of not being part of Facebook's ecosystem. Look at this: "whether it’s Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, or a stronger tool such as Signal." It's basically an ad for Facebook properties.