I assume it's a defensible question of priorities. In spite of the many issues to complain about signal it's still a lot better than what $random_person would

I assume it's a defensible question of priorities. In spite of the many issues to complain about signal it's still a lot better than what $random_person would likely use otherwise. Do we do the most good for the world by under-representing signal's weaknesses and overstating its security in order to maximize the people using it over choices that are worse and cheerlead its development, or do we do the most good by trying to be frank and being critical of its limitations (at least some of which are pretty nitpicky), potentially at the expense of the discussion causing people to continue using clearly worse alternatives? Personally I answer this conflict like this: Outside of a techy venue I don't go into any details about signal's limitations-- I tell people they should use it, but don't assume it keeps them private from governments, google, or other powerful parties.