Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors and information sharing with the government when they want to read or know what you are doing.
Happy to bet $100 that this lawsuit goes nowhere.
Not just the USA. This is basically universal.
This type of generalized defeatism does more harm than not.
But for your data you want to absolutely keep secret? It's probably the only to guarantee someone else somewhere cannot see it, default to assume if it's remote, someone will eventually be able to access it. If not today, it'll be stored and decrypted later.
Nation state governments do have the ability to coerce companies within their territory by default.
If you think this feature is unique to the USA, you are buying too much into a separate narrative. All countries can and will use the force of law to control companies within their borders when they see fit. The USA actually has more freedom and protections in this area than many countries, even though it’s far from perfect.
> This type of generalized defeatism does more harm than not.
Pointing out the realities of the world and how governments work isn’t defeatism.
Believing that the USA is uniquely bad and closing your eyes to how other countries work is more harmful than helpful.
The OP assumption that it's just the way it is and everyone should accept their communication being compromised is the issue.
Thats just wrong. Signal for example is headquartered in the US and does not even have this capability (besides metadata)
Then why are politicians wasting time and attracting ire attempting pushing it through? Same goes for UK demanding backdoors. If they already have it, why start a big public fight over it?
Personally, I would never trust anyone big enough that it(in this case Meta) need and want to be deeply entangled in politics.
Wonder what large scale provider outside USA won’t do that?