Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)

[riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com>]

I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements.

On 3/18/21, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> (...)
> I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not
> quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** assertions like
> the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption
> does not help our cause.
(...)
> WhatsApp **apparently** has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the
> Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook.
>
> Of course, it's closed source, so **we can't know for sure what's really
> in there**, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as **anyone knows**, it
> is **the real deal**:

I added all the '**' to emphasize with precision what I find unacceptable.
Taking them as a whole they are simply absurd, in a very rigorous, logic
sense.

Am I wrong in this, and altogether they conform a serious and reasonable
argument?

Because as far as I used to know, once you put one foot in closed-source
clients territory you're no longer speaking about security but insecurity.
The whole discussion becomes irrelevant, you're simply **having faith**
- **in Facebook**, to make it even more intense - , which is, by definition,
the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security.

Is that I'm completely wrong in this?

How can anyone **know** that WA's claimed E2E encryption is **the real
deal**?

Thanks a lot for any answers.
Kind regards.