I mean, this is a good philosophical question, and I think the answer tends to just be "whatever a news organization decides to write about", so clearly this co

I mean, this is a good philosophical question, and I think the answer tends to just be "whatever a news organization decides to write about", so clearly this counts. But I think what makes for interesting news are things that are new and non-obvious. The point of the thread starter (which resonated with me) is that this is neither. What rubs me wrong about the article is that it lacks context. From just this article, this sounds like a novel threat. But it's ludicrously far from that. You could write the same article about every communication system used by every business ever. For instance, tons of important stuff is still required to be done by fax, which is far less privacy-preserving than Slack. Email remains pretty much universally unencrypted. The article doesn't try to grapple with this context at all, which makes it read oddly to me.