That is funny and flippant,but obviously non argument. Non terrorist can not avoid water but can avoid decentralized network.

That’s not obviously a non argument.

(Invented though likely stats): 90% of terrorists smoke cigarettes. 98% of terrorists have drank a sugared drink. 99% of terrorists have eaten meat. All of these are avoidable.

And none of these are comparable to Matrix vs Slack or wherever decentralized encrypted network we are talking about.

People can actually distinguish between the two which is the reason that as funny as argument is, it does absolutely nothing.

Based on that logic we should ban all forms of crypto and just live in clear text. It won’t stop the boogeymen, but it’ll make us feel safer.

My point thing is, even dumb people think in much more nuanced terms, so this kind of reductive fake-logic argument does not work. Using it just makes you look like someone who is not able to think about real world.

You may seeming win debate, because people stop to engage. But, you wont convince neither on rational nor on emotional level, because that argument is weak.

I generally don’t try and engage in such conversations. In the case of matrix, terrorism existed long before its existence and other encrypted services were available. Unless you block them all, terrorists will just follow the path of least resistance.