The argument is that PGP with email is weak protection for multiple reasons: literally decades old cryptography, hard to use and easy to misuse, but most of all the very mail protocol mandates that some metadata remains in clear, and in practice most of it is easily available to third parties, first of which the servers hosting mail for me. As much as I want to see this ubiquitous protocol be used everywhere and get rid of the millions of chat protocols once and for all, that criticism is valid and requires at least a substantiated answer.

Right, all that is true. None if it justifies giving up on encrypted email, which is based on OPEN STANDARDS and is FEDERATED. I don't care if the subject leaks, I use generic subjects when discussing private matters with friends over PGP encrypted mails. Now I understand people are not happy with the state of encrypted email, which has more to do with support of popular email providers than with GPG per-se. But suggesting we use PROPRIETARY service for which only one official ELECTRON APP exists, which they host on AMAZON WEB SERVICES, which requires me to use PHONE NUMBER to sign up, and which is just waiting for enough VC money to transform into yet another analytic company, is just travesty.

Is Signal using crypto tokens to pay these blog promotions? I find it hard to believe that people writing these blogs do not realize the hypocrisy they commit. "Trust our service, we won't betray you. We promise. ;-)"

The Subject is part of data; you can't say you want end-to-end encryption and agree that some parts of the content is in clear.

I understand why you're saying Signal is proprietary, but it's also the standard for encrypted messenger that scales. Any protocol (or group of protocol) aiming to provide encryption and claiming to protect privacy should be doing at least as much as Signal. That bar is impossible to reach with email, short of coming up with an incompatible protocol in which case we might as well do it proper... that's what XMPP is for ;)