I can't blame you, I don't even take myself seriously. But going back to the point, is anything in my article inaccurate – as far as you know? The being overheard thingy isn't scientific research, one would reckon. Do we agree that trying to inform and empower people is a sensible way to progress? I could argue that our blog is probably doing better than FB and the philanthropist Zuckerberg.

Going back to WhatsApp, some of the aspects of its encryption layer are still unclear, to quote your link:

"The threat is remote, quite limited in scope, applicability (requiring a server or phone number compromise) and stealthiness (users who have the setting enabled still see a warning–even if after the fact). The fact that warnings exist means that such attacks would almost certainly be quickly detected by security-aware users. This limits this method."

This paragraph alone, when put in context, would at least ring a bell and make you question the security and encrypted statement. Especially when it's coming from one of Zuckerberg subsidiaries.

If I read your comment in a different way, I might take it as saying that we should never ever trust anyone who's ever made a mistake (or someone who trusted someone who's made a mistake). I don't think our world can function at all if everyone adopts the same thinking without adequate reflection on content vs. the person/messenger. Of course, there is value in questioning the credibility of a source of information over a period of time when multiple issues have surfaced. But judging an entire blog based on one single post and dismissing that? It neither seems fair nor useful to me.