Why is it a fake?
Assume i have gnome-screensaver, kscreensaver and xlock installed. now i use one of them to lock the screen. do all the others now cry, because the used one is a fake to them?

They get closer to the bad guys to catch them. HEY, we WANT someone doing something against terror. PLEASE get to the bad guys. But STOP spying at the rest of us.
So E2E encryption is great. Breaking it is possible (mostly side channels), but needs a lot more efford. So they will stop spying on everyone and target the really suspicious ones. That's no guarantee you will never be targeted, but a guarantee, that most people will have their privacy while the bad guys are observed.

and saving them is not that nice, too. clicking just closes the lightbox

the page does not move. alone is 0x0, then the image starts loading and the page is re-rendered, your currently focused point moves to make place for the loading image. Best if the image height is unknown until its loaded completely.

Okay, the new part was the "we destroy your data" DRM was new to me. A good thing WhatsApp is doing something against, as it seriously can damage their reputation. BUT they should not tell the user "YOU are violating our TOS" (even when its a correct fact), but tell them "your inofficial client does harmful things, better use the original one". And at least one user should sue WA+ for this.

For the "seen is not updated" issue you need to blame WA. A server should never trust user input. If the last seen should be updated when the last seen of another user is retrieved, then you need to update it when the other timestamp is retrieved. For the blue checkmarks ... you cannot prove somebody read it, you may only prove the window was open. So do it like threema: let the user send a "i have read it" message. Of course your client can send it by default, but you cannot rely on all clients to send it, so do not tell the users its reliable. its a feature, not a basic function.

You see the problem here? Centralization. Microsoft could never Ban a OutlookPlus user from E-Mail ... because the server is not theirs.

Okay, lets use another app. Maybe threema? Secure (maybe), encrypted, not hosted in the US of A. Sounds great, fuck you NSA.
Wait ... where do i configure the server? Nowhere, it uses its own. Maybe it will block other thirdparty clients? Maybe they will introduce a fee? Maybe they get insolvent and out of business? Who knows ...

Decentralization matters ... what else? Proven protocols and proven crypto. So XMPP and OTR ist the (only?) answer.

Have a look at Conversations.

it is.

why should i distrust some app, which broke trademarks? This does not imply any insecurity.

they even needed to rewrite php for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

come on baby run linspire. (search for it)

which is a point in taking some action against whatsapp-plus. not against its users. If someone claims the name firefox is theirs, i can still use my firefox version, even when mozilla is only allowed to distribute watersquirrel afterwards.

and i operate quite a few servers. Yet i still do not block everything which has no MSIE in the useragent on them.

And Firefox can be as well. Especially as Firefox supports insecure (just like secure) extensions.

So what? The User chooses the client and is resposible for any bullshit the client may do.

i am sure, you have some sources, reviews or opionions from users to back this?

Their logging policy says the opposite.