The table is quite big (190+ lines of hand-written HTML) and it doesn’t fit on mobile phone screens unless you zoom out. It should be fine on desktop. It also specifies the criteria followed and has analysis of some of the IMs in the table (not close to all of them, I hope to add more analysis in the future).
Counter-arguments are always welcome. Sources and additional information too. Note that the typical privacy recommendation (Signal) is not recommended here. It does not meet our criteria, being centralized and requiring a phone number. I don’t want to hate on Signal since it’s doing a decent job spreading the importance of E2EE, however we can not recommend it for the given reasons.
electron is mentioned in the OS supported section as a platform. Not taken into account for the privacy part, as you can see it is neither red or green. Also, there’s not a single mention of Element, because it’s just one client, yes.
I encourage you to read our criteria, I think you’ll find it quite reasonable.
You literally put Electron under the Matrix protocol. If you’re going to judge it by its official client, you should do so with XMPP, whom doesn’t even have an official client.
I just did a text search on the page and There’s no mention of electron outside the Operating System support in the table, which is not taken into account for the rating.
And yes, I like that There’s no official client for XMPP which helps it’s independence from any entity or corporation, potential bad actors trying to push malicious features. But that’s beyond my point.
I don’t judge Element instead of Matrix. I just mention the OS support which is not rated and I make clear that there are other clients.
can you even read? It’s under supported OSs, and it says that it also has other clients in the same box.