The claim [...] is that the app is not encrypted or secured.

The original claim, made by the app's publishers on that site, is that it is secured. That claim is not substantiated anywhere.

Neither the app nor its developers came to this community and claimed to be anything.

In the strict logical sense of AND, this is true. They did claim to be something, just not in this community.

The surety is that they are not what they claim to be. Ok, then show it. You can't just make claims you can't substantiate and then argue when people ask questions. I don't buy either claim because neither claim has demonstrable evidence.

This is where the context of community and subject comes in, because it shifts the semantics of the claim.

In privacy and security context, Zero Trust is the baseline assumption out of practical considerations: Any app, service, environment or infrastructure is to be treated as insecure unless proven otherwise. I'm sure I don't need to explain the reasoning to you here.

Under that convention, that claim isn't so much an objective assertion of fact, which would subject it to the burden of proof, as an assertion of that baseline in absence of that "proven otherwise".

It's not much different from asserting "We don't know" in scientific contexts. "We don't know if there are infinite primes" is an assertion that needs no substantiation by itself, because ignorance is the baseline in that context. If you want to claim that there are, in fact, infinite primes, you will need to back that claim up with proof. (I know that proof isn't hard to find, this is just an illustrating example).

The key difference is that, in privacy or security contexts, ignorance is considered tantamount to a lack of privacy or security. That essentially just leaves proofs of security and refutations thereof.

What have we learned from the religious right? Belief without evidence negates clarity in understanding.

Atheists generally feel no need to substantiate their belief in the non-existence of god either. The mechanism is rather similar: Because the existence of god has significant ramifications, the burden has been categorically shifted to those making that claim, while the rest of us carry on under the assumption that he doesn't exist.

Sure, agnostics acknowledge that uncertainty, but what is the practical implication of that theoretical? Do you act as if there was a god, as Pascal's Wager would have it, or as if there was no god, in the same way that Zero Trust treats the uncertainty as insecurity?

I came to Lemmy to get away from the Reddit blowhards.

How kind of you to bring some of their arrogant, universal pedantry with you.

Okay, that was a bit too sarcastic. Let me rephrase:

You double down on a theoretical point, heedless of practical context, arguing about the logical mechanisms without acknowledging the semantics that act upon them, the purpose which they are supposed to serve. You act like an even more misguided enlightened centrist saying we should make no judgement either way in contexts where a judgement definitely needs to be made and the absence of convincing arguments is itself an argument.

Then you have the absolute gall to consider your detached, past-the-point quibbling with complete disregard for half of what people are saying some form of evidence that we're all stupid.

We're not. We're practical.

We know that tomato is a fruit and that, technically, there is no explicit proof of insecurity. We also know that tomato doesn't fit into the general taste profile of a fruit salad and that handling private data requires a great deal of trust that is not given, but earned. We don't put tomato into a fruit salad and we don't trust websites making a cheap claim without putting in the work to convince us.

touch grass