As Meta removes end-to-end encryption from Instagram direct messages by May 8, 2026, it is worth acknowledging the companies and organizations that have gotten privacy right — that have built end-to-end encryption into their products as a default and maintained that commitment despite commercial and institutional pressures to compromise it. Their example demonstrates that genuine privacy protection is possible and sustainable.
Signal stands as the most complete example of getting it right. The Signal Foundation, which operates the encrypted messaging app, was created specifically to provide secure communication as a public good rather than a commercial service. Its nonprofit structure eliminates the advertising revenue incentive that creates pressure against encryption at commercial platforms. Signal has maintained default end-to-end encryption, resisted government requests for data it does not hold, and demonstrated through multiple legal proceedings that its design makes it technically impossible to provide message content it does not have.
WhatsApp, despite its Meta ownership, has maintained end-to-end encryption as a default feature since 2016. The retention of WhatsApp’s encryption — in contrast to Instagram’s removal — demonstrates that default encryption can coexist with commercial operation within a large technology company. The commercial calculation that makes WhatsApp’s encryption worth maintaining is different from Instagram’s, but the demonstrated possibility of maintaining it is significant.
Apple’s iMessage has provided end-to-end encryption for messages between Apple users since 2011, and Apple has resisted government pressure to weaken that encryption. The company’s public position — that it builds its products to be private by design and does not maintain the capability to access user communications — represents a product philosophy that stands in contrast to Instagram’s approach.
These examples demonstrate that the technical and business challenges of providing end-to-end encrypted messaging are soluble. The question is not whether it is possible but whether companies have the will to prioritize it when doing so conflicts with commercial or institutional pressures.