Wired’s Attack on Privacy
The Wired article by David Gilbert focusing on neo-Nazis moving to SimpleX Chat following the Telegram's changes in privacy policy is biased and misleading. By cherry-picking information from the report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), Wired fails to mention that SimpleX network design prioritizes privacy in order to protect human rights defenders, journalists, and everyday users who value their privacy — many people feel safer using SimpleX than non-private apps, being protected from strangers contacting them.
Yes, privacy-focused SimpleX network offers encryption and anonymity — that’s the point. To paint this as problematic solely because of who may use such apps misses the broader, critical context.
SimpleX’s true strength lies in protection of users' metadata, which can reveal sensitive information about who is communicating, when, and how often. SimpleX protocols are designed to minimize metadata collection. For countless people, especially vulnerable groups, these features can be life-saving. Wired article ignores these essential protections, and overlooks the positive aspects of having such a unique design, as noted in the publication which they link to:
“SimpleX also has a significant advantage when it comes to protecting metadata — the information that can reveal who you’re talking to, when, and how often. SimpleX is designed with privacy at its core, minimizing the amount of metadata collected and ensuring that any temporary data necessary for functionality is not retained or linked to identifiable users.”
Both publications referenced by Wired also explore how SimpleX design actually hinders extremist groups from spreading propaganda or building large networks. SimpleX design restricts message visibility and file retention, making it far from ideal for those looking to coordinate large networks. Yet these important qualities are ignored by Wired in favor of fear-mongering about encryption — an argument we've seen before when apps like Signal faced similar treatment. Ironically, Wired just a month earlier encouraged its readers to adopt encrypted messaging apps, making its current stance even more contradictory.
The vilification of apps that offer critically important privacy, anonymity, and encryption must stop. That a small share of users may abuse these tools doesn’t justify broad criticism. Additionally, the lobbying for client-side scanning, which Wired’s article seems to indirectly endorse, is not only dangerous but goes against fundamental principles of free speech and personal security. We strongly oppose the use of private communications for any kind of monitoring, including AI training, which would undermine the very trust encryption is designed to build.
It’s alarming to see Wired not only criticize SimpleX for its strong privacy protections but also subtly blame the European Court of Human Rights for upholding basic human rights by rejecting laws that would force encrypted apps to scan and hand over private messages before encryption. Wired writes:
…European Court of Human Rights decision in February of this year ruled that forcing encrypted messaging apps to provide a backdoor to law enforcement was illegal. This decision undermined the EU’s controversial proposal that would potentially force encrypted messaging apps to scan all user content for identifiers of child sexual abuse material.
This commentary is both inappropriate and misguided — it plays into the hands of anti-privacy lobbyists attempting to criminalize access to private communications. Framing privacy and anonymity as tools for criminals ignores the reality that these protections are essential for millions of legitimate users, from activists to journalists, to ordinary citizens. Client-side scanning can't have any meaningful effect on reducing CSAM distribution, instead resulting in increase of crime and abuse when criminals get access to this data.
We need to correct this narrative. The real danger lies not in protecting communication, but in failing to do so. Privacy apps like SimpleX are crucial, not just for those resisting mass surveillance, but for everyone who values the right to communicate without fear of their conversations being monitored or misused. This is a right we must defend and incorporate into law, as we wrote before.
Wired could have stood on the right side of this battle and helped normalize the demand for privacy, genuinely protecting people from criminals and from the exploitation of the increasingly AI-enabled mass surveillance. Instead they chose the path of spreading fear and uncertainty of encrypted messaging and tools that enable privacy and anonymity.
Spreading misinformation about privacy and security undermines trust in the tools that protect us, making it easier to justify more invasive surveillance measures that chip away at our civil liberties.
Wired did not respond to our request for comment.