From a purely technical perspective, this article raises multiple valid points. From a practical perspective, there can be legal and logistical benefits to not

From a purely technical perspective, this article raises multiple valid points. From a practical perspective, there can be legal and logistical benefits to not knowing what your customers are doing. I think articles like this get treated like they're referring to a broad category of activities, or making very broad statements, when in fact they're talking about a very narrow aspect of security. And to be fair, people do treat Javascript Crypto like it's the same thing as normal, native E2E encryption, so maybe that pushback is sometimes necessary. But this isn't a binary, black-and-white principle. JS crypto is problematic in environments like the web because it is very hard to validate or pin the code that is sent to your browser (and for a few other reasons). This means that E2E crypto is not a good way of protecting yourself from a malicious provider. JS crypto does not remove your need to trust your host, and to trust your host's security. It does not follow the E2E crypto has no uses at all on the web. It just means you have to be open about what benefits it does and doesn't provide. It isn't a silver bullet that will protect you everywhere.