If users really cared about privacy they'd use open source software instead of WhatsApp anyway. I doubt the removal or compromised e2e encryption would make much of a dent in user numbers. One thing I've come to realise is most people want privacy for themselves, but not for others.
Is the UK government really caring about the children or do they just want more convenient power.
If the citizens really cared about the future of their children they would not have elected a government that is a stinking pile of poop.
One thing you should also have come to realise is that most politicians want surveillance power for themselves, but not for others.
As always, I find myself unsure how many actively voted for the Eton Mess vs how many voted to keep out Socialist Santaclaus and his Singing Elves.
Both have been (de facto) kicked out of their respective parties since the last election, which says something about the terrible state of UK politics.
I thought that by "Eton Mess", you meant to include Rishi Sunak and David Cameron. The former is the leader of the Tories, and I'm not aware that Csameron is (de facto) no longer a Tory.
What did you mean?
I think the UK government’s blind eye toward well-known and acknowledged instances of organized child molestation shows they don’t care. About that.
FPTP makes it more likely than with other democratic election methods that all your choices are different varieties of stinking pile of poop.
Meta and the like absolutely do not fundamentally support privacy. Their entire business model depends on users not having privacy.
But Meta and the like does support privacy protections from entities that aren't them.
I appreciate their stance as well, but I don't think it should be surprising. There's a real cost to updating WhatsApp to meet those requirements, and I think Meta's belief is that MPs will cave instead of taking the heat for banning WhatsApp.