@sqrtminusone @GuerillaOntologist The fact that WhatsApp is (at least in theory) secure helps immunize Zuckerberg from ownership. If a platform’s security is so weak that every state security service has everything they want all the time, there’s no need to own the principal. If it’s so secure the principal has no access, same. When the principal can get access but unaffiliated security services cannot, that’s when the principal becomes a very desirable target. 1/

@sqrtminusone @GuerillaOntologist All that said, I wouldn’t presume WhatsApp is secure from US state intelligence gathering, even though the label promises it should be. I expect Zuckerberg is owned, in that way. But Meta is a bureaucratic behemoth in a way Telegram is not. The person of the principal (as opposed to other sources of access) is arguably more relevant for Telegram. 2/

@sqrtminusone @GuerillaOntologist Telegram is arguably pretty unique in the scale and intelligence value of what it hosts, combined with how personally it is controlled. 3/

@sqrtminusone @GuerillaOntologist All that said, I’m not affirmatively arguing this is what happened. I do think it facially plausible, but of course the most likely thing is a state action is just what it claims and appears to be, not some conspiracy.

I do think, from the outside, both might be plausible here. Thus the poll, “just asking questions!” /fin