Youngster, your not an idiot.

You just proved my point

See you don't agree with an article. You think it's a. I generated. Fine

Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You can't. ..

Your simply not looking at it from a vriepoirnt of having watched this outcome be developed intentionally by controlling men

It is what it is. No amount of name calling, or wishful thinking on your part. Will change that.

You are making statements that unfortunately have been proven incorrect in the real world.

It's faked all the time because THERES MONRY IN IT.

If there's money in it, it is happening. No amount of pretending that a quantum computer( Which isn't available so is a non factor in reality, so I'll ignore the irrelevant argument. ) is the only way to fake traffic.

And on to your argument. You've proven nothing. Your comment has nothing of substance in it, and what is was Trumpian in focus and meaning.

I truly wish you a good day. I'm too tired of overly confident tech bros to continue this.

Elon Musk says he champions free speech. He does not.

That’s a 4 digits password behind your account password and 2FA lol.

Platform from a whiny, fascist asshole for whiny, fascist assholes. Not that everyone on that platform is one, some might just have a high tolerance for bs

Like every news from X I'll pretend I did nazi it

I guess it can be done relatively securely using both the password and the code to derive the encryption key while not storing it on the servers (while 2fa isn't of any help here given it's kinda random with shared seed). I, however, doubt it's done that way: 1st of all, decryption should then only be possible after one enters their account password for the second time, as well as the conversation password (since the password shouldn't be stored in plaintext after you've entered it), and, secondly, that'll basically drop the chat history as soon as one changes the password, which is neither convenient nor mentioned.

Then, if it works how I assume it does, i.e. the actual encryption key is stored on the xitter's servers and only retrieved once you enter the encryption password, then they can decrypt your messages (either by immediately using that if the password just tells 'em who they should give the key to, or by bruteforcing the password if it decrypts/derives the actual key), which defeats the whole point of e2ee.

I prefer to judge people by their actions, not by the bullshit they spew. If you really think he champions free speech you are not at all paying attention to his actions.

Someones afraid of their dealer getting caught…

I don't think I'm going to trust them. Besides 4 digit pass is very easy to crack.

there's no way for anyone, including X, to read your messages.

That defeats the purpose of a messaging platform.

I know what they meant, but the phrasing is so, so stupid. Anyone who is considering this platform, should think twice before doing so. If they get the phrasing of such a simple sentiment this, incoherently wrong, what does their code look like and what do the encryption protocols look like? If I'd have to guess... AI slop.

When has X under Musk had anything happen to doubt their encryption?

Musk routinely hires young unqualified technicians, and abused, laid off, or otherwise alienated much of the top talent at Twitter, in the name of cost savings.

There's plenty of other stories out there of Musk's ego interfering with his staff's ability to do their jobs properly.

Most recently, the new DOGE has suffered substantial security lapses, associated with under-hiring and under-provisioning against cyber security threats, under Musk's leadership.

Even before Twitter was aquired, Twitter had an embarrassing memorable history with public figures suffering from security incidents caused by Twitter's own staff, training, technology or processes. This was arguably not a huge problem for an almost fully public messaging platform, but could be disasterous for anyone relying on this new E2EE solution, if it is incorrectly implemented.

The talent needed to correctly implement secure end to end encryption is rare, on a good day, for a good employer with a strong history of loyalty to their staff. X arguably has little to none of that going for it, today.

There's very little reason to assume that X, under Musk's current leadership, has correctly securely implemented end-to-end encryption, and there are reasonable reasons for people to fear that E2EE developed at X may have serious security flaws.

Were you being serious with that or sarcastic?

Dude, even X’s AI, Grok, distrusts the CEO.

Are you? Because X is the only platform that's legally fighting against government ordered censorship. X is the only social media platform that pretty much only bans you if you break the law, instead of banning you the second you question the echo chambers preferred message.

Most recently, the new DOGE has suffered substantial security lapses,

Did they? What? The made up ones where people claimed that DOGE gave russian hackers access to databases despite DOGE never even requesting access to their systems?

Even before Twitter was aquired, Twitter had an embarrassing memorable history with public figures suffering from security incidents caused by Twitter’s own staff, training, technology or processes.

Funny that you say this after you said this:

Musk routinely hires young unqualified technicians, and abused, laid off, or otherwise alienated much of the top talent at Twitter, in the name of cost savings.

So twitters staff, training, technology and processes were the source of these embarrassing incidents.......but then Musk shouldn't have gotten rid of them?

but could be disasterous for anyone relying on this new E2EE solution, if it is incorrectly implemented.

And there's nothing to say that it is incorrectly implemented other than hopes and dreams by people who want it to be.

The talent needed to correctly implement secure end to end encryption is rare, on a good day, for a good employer with a strong history of loyalty to their staff.

Absolutely not true lol. Secure end to end encryption is a solved problem. It's not hard to implement.

The phrasing is only stupid if you are trying to have an issue with it. Obviously you and the person you're chatting to can read your messages. That doesn't need to be said, it's inferred.

End to End Encryption is easy. Why do you guys all seem to think it's hard?

Rules were put in place to stop trackers like that as they are massive security risks, borderline doxing.

You don't just log in to their new chat with a 4 digit pass key lol. You need to be logged in to X, meaning password and (hopefully) 2FA would need to be "hacked" in order to even get to the 4 digit password.

They specifically say they can not decrypt your messages.

Why does everyone in here think that E2E encryption is some insanely hard new thing? It's been "solved" for years lol. It's not hard to do.