That is a valid, nuanced take that this article and (seemingly) the legislation don’t get into.

Of course ad-supported services are infringing on your privacy in a way but if you’re not ready to call Facebook a publicly-funded utility, it’s childish to act like it’s so essential that it should be entirely ad-free with no paid tier.

Only cause they can’t interject ads while driving lol

The point was that it’s apples to oranges. Monetization is kinda the key issue here unless you’re ready to declare Facebook a utility and publicly fund it. Personally, I’d rather we be rid of it entirely.

And that is totally unreasonable collection, of course. It’s also completely incomparable to pretending that Facebook is as necessary as a car (at least in America).

But there’s also no ad-supported cars.

Why do you think people commit crime?

No, she didn’t make the cops gay.

“Slap in the face” is a bit dramatic when this doesn’t impact the truly private version of this software, the version you host on a system you control.

I’m also not sure what end-to-end encryption has to do with this since preventing the sign up of an abusive user essentially addresses the issue. It’s probably not something they’d wanna do but I’d wager they were getting some subpoenas and/or warrants that they couldn’t provide much information for and LEOs were ratcheting up pressure. Unfortunately, the legal side of tech is more than “ha ha can’t do that, officer”.

Short answer is that a lot of privacy-focused tools get abused like hell and put these companies in an untenable position. It sounds like Jitsi had something fairly bad happening that would’ve put them in a regulatory pinch.