Since when is encryption dependent on the service’s jurisdiction? When Signal has got subpoenaed it has always been incapable of providing data that involves the content of the conversation https://signal.org/bigbrother/

The app is also open source with reproducible builds (and you can use Molly instead, if you prefer) and when the clients of an end-to-end encrypted system are sound, that is all that matters to secure the content of the communication.
Audits are also performed as listed here https://community.signalusers.org/t/overview-of-third-party-security-audits/13243

I don’t understand where this doomerism comes from tbh, (online) privacy will cease to exist when either maths does or it becomes globally illegal to use encryption and the government’s intrusion is really so pervasive that they constantly know what you’re doing. Luckily we don’t yet live in that world, though the pressure is real and we are the first that have to fight for this basic human right

Unfathomably based

I’m not sure I follow, with “them” who are you referring to?

It isn’t really opposing the network effect, because you enable who is on the platform you want to avoid to keep using it and staying in touch with you, so they have no incentive to try your platform, if most of their contacts remain on theirs.
As you said, an automatic response is a thing that would make a difference, there is something at stake and the contact either tries your proposed platform or sees you as too extreme and drops the conversation altogether

Oh, this is Revolt, didn’t know they had rebranded.
As far as privacy goes, they’re stuck at no end-to-end encryption https://github.com/revoltchat/revolt/issues/207, otherwise, they are probably (I don’t know this for sure, because just being open source isn’t enough for this kind of service) slightly better than Discord

Basically this document will not stop illegal working (because you know, people who hire illegal workers don’t check paperwork)

Totally agree on this, but as for the rest, I’m guessing this only expedites linking up information by virtue of it being in a computerised system rather than enabling it at all.
It is very worrisome that a party like that could get into power, but it doesn’t change how it’s always been, we are at the “mercy” of our government, if they want to single out a demographic and actively hamper it, they will find a way regardless of the tools in use.

To focus on this as a bad aspect looks to me like it’s sort of missing the point, this more or less should provide an easier management of information.
What could be argued instead, is that it is locking out people who don’t have the access to devices enabled to it, which is a real problem if they want to phase out papers completely. Here in Italy already with the IO app we can (so it’s currently fully optional) have our driving licence digitised, but that single feature doesn’t work (at least for now, and it’s been almost a year by now that support hasn’t been added) on GrapheneOS, for example.
I think the real issues are two: a hostile government, which holds true regardless of methods, and lack of support for secure and private platforms which the citizens should 100% be entitled to use

Genuine question: how is this a privacy invasion? Isn’t it simply digitising the already needed paperwork?