The authors of that article pulled off a motte and bailey fallacy[1]. The motte is "There should be message forwarding limits and group size limits on encrypted

The authors of that article pulled off a motte and bailey fallacy[1]. The motte is "There should be message forwarding limits and group size limits on encrypted messaging platforms". > It’s interesting to note that WhatsApp has restricted message forwarding for exactly this reason [preventing false information spreading like on social networks] We can all agree message forwarding limits are a good idea - no one like spam. The bailey is implied to be that we should keep tabs on identified extremists even in encrypted platforms. > I share your worry about the encrypted apps becoming, essentially, huge shadow social networks. > there’s now this debate about whether it’s good that all these unsavory characters from the dregs of the internet are disappearing from big social platforms, or whether it’s dangerous to have them congregating in spaces where researchers, journalists and law enforcement can’t keep tabs on them as easily. The authors (or speakers, as this article is a dialog) never make the bailey argument. Instead they make arguments that would naturally lead to the bailey, if taken seriously. Private messengers could become "shadow social networks"? Well if they do, they must be policed like social networks. Also note in the second quote how the speaker distances them self from the argument with "there's this debate". They don't mention the alternative to the current situation, so it is left to the imagination of the reader - should we allow "unsavory characters" back on social media platforms? Or is the alternative that we continue keeping tabs on them on the encrypted messaging apps? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy