Granted, I started out on LISP. My version of "easy to read and write" might be slightly masochistic. But I love Perl and Python and Javascript are definitely "you can jump in and get shit done if you have worked in most languages. It might not be idiomatic, but it'll work"...

Funnily enough, when I write for the purpose of math, my numbers are more legible than when I just write down a number. For some reason, I code switch in my handwriting. Kinda obnoxious when I'm filling out forms.

There are two issues I do see, though, and they're kind of the same issue. Right now, we have this concept of a central store of public certificates. It makes it easy for you to get a certificate for a particular entity, but it also makes the central store a target. If you can compromise a central store (or a machine that is attempting to access said central store), you probably have the resources to at least redirect the user to your own site and leave them none-the-wiser, and you probably have the resources to man-in-the-middle their connection entirely and just snoop your heart out. So central stores of trust are a bit of an issue, and the ways around that are non-trivial to set up. A good example is probably KeyBase, who allow you to certify your various online presences with your private key. So if someone wants to replace your information on KeyBase with their own one, and they have the resources to do so, now they also have to compromise all the places you've distributed that key to. Or, they have to compromise one of those centralized stores of trust....

The big issue with centralized stores of trust is that they build blind trust. That's the big issue with humans in general, though. We don't want to question what we're watching. And we probably don't want to be bothered with validating that the "trusted source" of the certificate used to sign this content is actually _trusted_. It's just too much mental overhead. We want it to be automatic. We want central stores of trust, because it's just _easier_. The work is going to be convincing people that _easier_ is dangerous, in this case. Or, it's going to be to convince software companies to build in inconvenient technology and not make it trivial to turn off.

Do you have something in mind that might be more complicated?

I think what's more likely, at least in the case of WhatsApp, is that they would just not make an announcement when they remove E2E encryption entirely. The security community would certainly complain, and long-term, the traffic they are currently getting from parties of any interest would move somewhere else. But in the short term, it would compromise the security of a substantial number of their target users. It's plausible that, without a public announcement, many 'nefarious' users would continue to use it for a few months.

Granted, in my area, there are exactly none, but I don't live in the best location for the use of modern tool/language/technology stacks. If I were to move an hour or two north, I'd probably find many.

I don't disagree that youtube is just as easy to use, but that doesn't change what Facebook has that youtube doesn't.