It’s an argument attacking the probable inconsistency of the parent’s argument. More generally speaking, it’s an argument that reiterates my original point - se

It’s an argument attacking the probable inconsistency of the parent’s argument. More generally speaking, it’s an argument that reiterates my original point - security is a context-specific discipline, and it is fully legitimate for people and companies to decide they would rather have various features than maximal security. Security has diminishing returns of efficiency with respect to how much safety it adds at the cost of removing some usability. I stand by my point: in practice, end-to-end encryption is not desirable for many applications, and that’s completely fine. We have entire fields like application security precisely because it’s inappropriate and untenable to lean on maximal computational security for all of our confidentiality, authentication and authorization requirements.