Whilst you're clearly much more comfortable with your "Facebook are bad" line, the problem is that this isn't the thread about how Facebook are good actually, this thread was about your completely bogus claim about Security Keys:
> This ignores the possibility that the company selling the solution could itself easily defeat the solution.
I'm sure you really are worried about how "Facebook are bad", and you feel like you need to insert that into many conversations about other things, but "Facebook are bad" is irrelevant here.
You made a bogus claim about Security Keys. These bogus claims help to validate people's feeling that they're helpless and, eh, they might as well put up with "Facebook are bad" because evidently there isn't anything they can really do about it.
So your problem is, which is more important, to take every opportunity to surface the message you care about "Facebook are bad" in contexts where it wasn't actually relevant, or to accept that hey, actually you're wrong about a lot of things, and some of those things actually reduce the threat from Facebook ? I can't help you make that choice.
> This ignores the possibility that the company selling the solution could itself easily defeat the solution.
I'm sure you really are worried about how "Facebook are bad", and you feel like you need to insert that into many conversations about other things, but "Facebook are bad" is irrelevant here.
You made a bogus claim about Security Keys. These bogus claims help to validate people's feeling that they're helpless and, eh, they might as well put up with "Facebook are bad" because evidently there isn't anything they can really do about it.
So your problem is, which is more important, to take every opportunity to surface the message you care about "Facebook are bad" in contexts where it wasn't actually relevant, or to accept that hey, actually you're wrong about a lot of things, and some of those things actually reduce the threat from Facebook ? I can't help you make that choice.