> With respect, you did not further the discussion. You turned it round and ran it backwards, misleading an unknown number of people in the process. They poste

> With respect, you did not further the discussion. You turned it round and ran it backwards, misleading an unknown number of people in the process. They posted their opinion. An opinion you may intently dislike, but that's allowed. Phrasing that as "you did not further the discussion" is profoundly unkind. > This is just factually false. Research end-to-end encryption. E2E and client-side scanning are entirely compatible; E2E just says what's sent over the wire, and nothing more. I don't know if WA does any kind of scanning or not, but they certainly could if they wanted to. They could also record every single keystroke if they wanted for example. That's the entire point of this: to have some protections without weakening the encryption. Whether that's a good method or not is obviously a highly controversial matter, but pitting it against E2E fundamentally misunderstands what this is about.