@aral Let's be clear -- Signal would choose to walk if the choice were between staying and weakening our privacy commitments, or leaving. Until then, we will do everything we can to ensure people have access to Signal and meaningful private communications.

@Mer__edith @aral OK, but can you clarify why the options are "stay" and "walk" rather than "comply" and "ignore the ridiculous demands of a hostile totalitarian regime and help people find proxies" like you did for Iran and Russia?

@dalias @aral Because the journalist interviewing me asked a hypothetical: if you had the choice between staying and weakening encryption or walking, which would you choose? And obviously the choice -- in the context of that hypothetical -- is to proverbially walk. This is clear in the body AND abstract of the article, even though they chose a headline w less nuance. OF COURSE we'd set up proxies and etc before "walking". And what "walking" would actually entail is not straightforward.

@dalias @aral Honestly, it's a bit annoying to see an org that allied with ours in terms of values and is also facing down the misguided regulatory landscape overindex so hard on a headline in what appears to be an attempt to set themsleves apart as a more moral/strategic actor. We are clearly all fighting the same fight, and Signal will of course do whatever we can to get people everywhere access to private comms. As we always have.

@Mer__edith @dalias Agree. This isn’t a marketing opportunity. It’s an existential crisis for what we’re all working towards. Tutanota folks, I’d highly recommend getting whomever is in charge over there to give Meredith a call (if you have time, that is, Meredith and are open to it, don’t want to add more to your plate) and come up with a common strategy. Ideally, with an eye towards involving other organisations that are similarly effected. Again, I’m happy to help any way I can.