> When WhatsApp broke the encryption by allowing Facebook to detect forwarded messages, there was no uproar or sudden loss of trust. There was no mass migration

> When WhatsApp broke the encryption by allowing Facebook to detect forwarded messages, there was no uproar or sudden loss of trust. There was no mass migration away from WhatsApp. Well, you’re giving a not so great example there. I don’t know anyone that uses WhatsApp because of their encryption system or privacy claims. Whereas I also don’t know anyone who would keep using signal if not for their encryption and privacy claims. In every metric I can perceive signal is just playing catch-up with WhatsApp or telegram features. The only winning feature is privacy and encryption. So, your argument that: > In reality even if some people checked it'd make no difference Makes no sense, if one person could break the trust on signal, it would be absolutely dead. No one would keep using a poor substitute with barely any user compared to the mainstream chat services if not for privacy and trust.