What's the point of E2E encryption?

[Irfan]

https://x.com/IndianTechGuide/status/2041712673000185931?s=20

[Danny]

We know, but there aren't any good alternatives right now.

[Madhav]

Oh my god, I just read from the second line onward and thought, what the heck!

[Firoz]

Secure ended with BlackBerry.

[Mohit]

Goat statement from the goat guy.

[Aman]

Nothing on the internet is truly secure, by the way.

[Amar]

You see, it's encrypted; otherwise I'd probably be behind bars right now.

[Dhruv]

Telegram is far better than WhatsApp – the UI is smoother and the chat features are nicer.

[Chitra]

The statement is a bit ambiguous and vague. I think WhatsApp's end‑to‑end encryption itself can't be compromised.

However, Meta could still access the data on the device it's sent from. WhatsApp's policy already lets them send some user statistics and the like.

[Vasant]

I'm not really sure if WhatsApp is secure, and I don't have much knowledge about it, so I probably shouldn't comment. But anyway, the person is the CEO of Telegram, which is one of WhatsApp's biggest rivals, so he's bound to be biased. Don't just take his word for it – do your own research and find out if his claim holds any truth. Remember, don't believe anything without evidence.

[Meera]

This is false – just a cheap publicity stunt to push people onto Telegram. Telegram is truly worse because it doesn't have true end‑to‑end encryption. Their method splits the message and stores pieces in different countries so no single nation can demand it.

The only gripe with WhatsApp is that it's closed‑source, which is where Signal has the edge. WhatsApp's security model is basically a pricey fork of the Signal protocol, and their white‑paper is available online.

I get the fear‑mongering vibe and how cool it feels to go against the trend, but please, be aware of all the nitty‑gritty details before forming an opinion.