[tptacek]

Because, once again, the billion-plus WhatsApp users don't use WhatsApp because they care about cryptography; they use it because it's the most dependable method they have to communicate with their peer group. If The Guardian tells them to switch to Signal because WhatsApp is bad, they'll use Signal for 4 minutes before switching to SMS --- which is what's actually happening.

[Dan_JiuJitsu]

So, we agree that calling this a 'fake' article is itself misleading. We also agree that Signal is a more secure alternative. Your position is essentially 'people cant be trusted with accurate information, you have to dumb it down so they can make the "right" choice based on the limited information they can absorb, so the Guardian should apologize and retract their accurate story.'

[idlewords]

Non-experts can't be expected to make an accurate evaluation of the UX trade-offs in handling buffered message delivery after a key change.

They trust that the Guardian, a highly reputable newspaper, has spoken to experts in the field, done the research, and made this evaluation, which it accurately reflected in the headline.

That trust is misplaced. That's why this is a fake story.

[Dan_JiuJitsu]

It's not a fake story. Every piece of information they presented is accurate. The Guardian did speak to experts in the field. I won't bore you with my credentials, but I agree with their assessment as well. Taking issue with the advice they give on UX grounds is one thing, but attacking the factual basis of the article is misguided.

[idlewords]

I have to come back to the vaccine analogy. Running a story headlined "Common Vaccine Can Kill Your Children" would be factually accurate, too. Experts in the field would confirm that that can happen.

This is not a "well, actually" nerdfight. This is about putting real people in danger through egregiously irresponsible reporting.

[Dan_JiuJitsu]

So, basically, your argument is that 'People can not be trusted with information that may be nuanced, so instead news outlets should limit themselves to headlines that minimize risk.' Comparing the use of an app to a lifesaving medicine is, in my view, a gross mis-characterization. The article suggested a more secure alternative that we all agree is more secure. What's the issue?

[scott_s]

Nuanced information requires nuanced explanations. This coverage is not nuanced: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/whatsapp

[tptacek]

I won't bore you with my credentials

No, please, do. None of us will be bored by this.

[ekiru]

> We also agree that Signal is a more secure alternative.

Signal is only a more secure alternative in _some_ threat models. The most obvious counterexample is that, in some contexts, using WhatsApp marks you as a person who owns a smartphone, while using Signal marks you as a dissident. There are other contexts where losing messages while not being actively attacked (not even just due to this design decision; Signal ultimately just does not have as reliable infrastructure as WhatsApp) is more dangerous than WhatsApp's resend behavior.

[tptacek]

Does this kind of rhetoric work for you in other venues?