> This is in contrast to a much more nuanced view of the issues in the west. End-to-end encryption is a debated issue in the US and EU and legislators have prop

> This is in contrast to a much more nuanced view of the issues in the west. End-to-end encryption is a debated issue in the US and EU and legislators have proposed laws to ban it or enforcing other mechanisms to circumvent by law enforcement such as backdoors. It looks to me like you try to cloud your false argument in whataboutisms based upon a profound lack of knowledge: > I mentioned the US as an example, because of Signal is operating under US jurisdiction. The reason Signal is a good way to go is because this doesn't matter. Signal doesn't save any conversations they can hand over to the US (or other) government. > This is in contrast to Iran which is in a chaotic region and surrounded by the US military bases. Yeah, yeah I get it. We all do. US = bad but how does it change anything for the oppressed people in Iran we can help here? If those would have been people in the US, we'd be doing the same thing for them here in the EU. > What I am expecting is a more nuanced and sophisticated perspective toward the issue. A whataboutism and derailment of the issue is neither nuanced nor sophisticated. It's quite shady and ignorant. Here is something you can do to help people out but instead of doing that, you try to build some weird case which actually helps the Iranian government.