The ability to describe anything says nothing about the clarity of the description

That's kinda the point.

While playing the devil's advocate, I could argue that the description using only 0 and 1 is more precise than the phrase "It's a picture of a white cliff on the shore of the sea, possibly in the south of England, in the foreground there's the silhouette of a man or woman to small to distinguish clearly at the bottom of the cliff, the sky above the cliff is bright blue with a few trailing clouds etc etc etc etc etc".

But we're not really talking about the description of a picture, we're in fact talking about political discourse.

Let's play a game; I'll describe a scene to you, and you need to make a drawing of the scene based on the description. The closer your drawing is to the scene I'm describing (for some agreeable metric of 'closer'), the more money you win.

Now, do you want me to recite a bunch of ones and zeros? Or would you rather I say, "It's a picture of a white cliff on the shore of the sea, possibly in the south of England; in the foreground there's a person's silhouette, too small to pick out their gender..."?

If, as you say, you could argue that the ones and zeros makes for a more precise description, then obviously you would prefer that option, yes?

I agree with you, but clarity is not the same thing as precision.

I disagree. That's a reproduction, not a description.

I dare you to find someone willing to, without a computer, parse such a description. JPEG is a surprisingly non-intuitive, complex format.

You're right, you can be more precise that way, but precise text means nothing if nobody is reading it.