That's one of the questions they're asking on their waitlist. But wait. That depends on how well it works for my usecase!

There needs to be a category for purchased products that require paid subscriptions to access features already manufactured into the item, such as heated seats in your car.

Fix the title 1,4999 is not a valid price :)

It seems to me that if lawmakers enforce the requirement that messaging apps/systems allow access to the original messages submitted by users, and refuse to understand that the laws of mathematics cannot be subverted by mere humans, except by simply disallowing those features ... then the appropriate response by messaging apps is to leave the presentation, user input, and encryption layers to plugins. Those plugins would submit messages already encoded/encrypted and would be compiled/installed by end users as add-ons, from source, on an individual basis, thus pushing the legal responsibility "to the edge." I.e., onto individual users of the system.

What would lawmakers do then? Disallow the transmission of unintelligible encrypted messages? Would the response to that be to embed encrypted messages inside intelligible messages? Would they disallow the very coding and distribution of encryption schemes and source code?

Clearly, this is not a battle that can be won by fiat; which is the same reason that cryptocurrencies will eventually usurp fiat currencies; and the reason that battle lines will be drawn in the sphere of influence of knowledge and code.

The stance of these legislators, to me, is akin to "Burn the books!" and "Burn the witches (i.e., cryptographers)!"

Law enforcement would be better served by funding development of side-channel attacks and unmasking methodologies that do not rely on the content of messages.