3 ms·
Ah, once again with the insubtantive rebuttal of the last point in the article, the point which has the least relevance to the meat of the article. And this tim
by ddevault 6y ago
Ah, once again with the insubtantive rebuttal of the last point in the article, the point which has the least relevance to the meat of the article. And this time, your rebuttal is out of date, because Matrix does have end-to-end encryption by default for all chats! Always lovely having you around on HN, tptacek.
- tptacek 6y agoRecommending a tool that wasn't even end-to-end encrypted over Signal because you didn't like the way Signal's leadership responded to your demand to support F-Droid is the most relevant thing you wrote. Just because it was malpractice doesn't make it out of bounds.
- ddevault 6y agoLook at this guy, he was wrong! Wrong wrong wrong WRONG! Look, he retracted his statement, that's how WRONG he was!
- tptacek 6y agoOnce again: you did not retract your statement. You ghost-edited it out of your post. The purpose of a retraction is to inform your readers of your mistake, and a retraction would be a good thing to add to your post. The distinction is especially germane in a thread on a post that purports to discern how trustworthy someone else is. You set the bar, now clear it.