[e12e]

I think it's a bad idea to mix a system that isn't expected to be secure, with ones that are expected to be secure.

Just like how sending a gpg encrypted email to (some) users of hushmail wasn't secure, because in the end hushmail encouraged insecure handling of the private keys.

In the end, the only rational, informed choice, is to regard the whole system as (in)secure as its least secure part.

If there is to be any point to a "secure social network", the trust you can place in the network (implementation) should be at least as high as the trust you place in those you share with?

Will you be able to take reasonable steps to prevent private keys to be written to (unencrypted) swap, for instance?

Promising a "secure" social network, kind of implies that data you share is secure from your spouse, for example.