works in almost exactly the same way as Signal, except that it also archives copies of all the messages passing through it, shattering all of its security guarantees.

Pretty sure Signal does that as well, which is not a security issue.

Signal uses end-to-end encryption (E2EE). The only copies of messages are on the sender’s and recipient’s devices.

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320391-Is-it-private-Can-I-trust-it#%3A~%3Atext=Signal+conversations+are+always+end%2C%2C+every+call%2C+every+time .

Copies of messages are also known as archives.

Signal does not archive messages on server side

They weren't talking about the server:

This app...works in almost exactly the same way as Signal, except that it also archives copies of all the messages passing through it, shattering all of its security guarantees.

It's why Molly has local database encryption.

Later in the article, it talks specifically about the server-side archives being stored in plain text. That’s why the hacker was able to access messages. This isn’t about the local copies on phones.

That doesn't really do anything. Attackers need local access to the device to get the database itself. Chances are, they'll get the key right with it.

Molly encrypts it using a passphrase instead of a locally stored key for exactly that reason.

Yeah I didn't read past the misinformation

Kinda seems like you're the misinformation.

Maybe you should start reading up on stuff you don't know about before adding nonsense to internet threads.

You're confused, I am not the author of this article. I did not write the statement above, just copied and pasted it here.

Don't know what you mean. I didn't add any "nonsense". Just a direct quote from the article in question.

I'm not confused, you're intentionally misreading what's happening for some reason.

"Passing through it" pretty clearly refers to the server as that's what was hacked into and had plain text archives.

You're hyper fixating on the fact that the article says "the app" when referring to both the phone and server pieces to try and argue... something.

You are confused. I'm not "intentionally misreading" anything, it was written incorrectly. I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just reading the (wrong) words used in the article. When I come across a piece of misinformation, I don't continue reading in the hopes that they clear it up later, I write it off and close it.

Someone else cleared this up. There's no reason to continue arguing about it.

I'm still not confused and you're still missing the forest for the trees because you don't like the common practice of including the server infrastructure when talking about apps.

There was a plaintext archive of messages on a remote server. That's a security problem no matter what point you're trying to make about the term app.