Since we have that sorted out, can we then come to the core point of your argument here? Namely, what does this have to do with bad or good crypto?
Cryptography is math. Its no soft science where someone can push his agenda through careful interpretation of statistics. The background of the people researching it is irrelevant.
But none of that is important. Important is what happens when you use terrible crypto in a terrible country: your data will be siphoned off at the backend and western IT people with the same high level education will trivially decipher it.
And that is why its necessary to criticize people pushing magic crypto systems. It literally kills!
Well, the background of crypto researchers was core to Quinn's "privilege" tweet. That's one of the points the OP author touched on in his response-response, so it was relevant here.
And of course it's necessary to scrutinize people pushing crypto systems or tools that claim to do something no one has been able to do before! That's not what the Wired post was about, though. It was about how the OP author specifically targeted the Wired piece's author and made it seem like she was either too incompetent to write an article about Cryptocat or that she wrote the article because she hates the crypto community (still don't understand how he came to that conclusion.)
Cryptography is math. Its no soft science where someone can push his agenda through careful interpretation of statistics. The background of the people researching it is irrelevant.
But none of that is important. Important is what happens when you use terrible crypto in a terrible country: your data will be siphoned off at the backend and western IT people with the same high level education will trivially decipher it.
And that is why its necessary to criticize people pushing magic crypto systems. It literally kills!