You seem confused. E2EE doesn’t mean peer-to-peer. Signal protocol isn’t peer-to-peer. You don’t need to be peer-to-peer to have secure communication because E2EE makes it so that the server can’t read what the two ends are writing.
Can you prove to me that WhatsApp actually encrypts the message on the phone in such a way that WhatsApp can’t see the message when it’s on their server?
Do you truly believe a company owned by Meta would provide that kind of security from THEM? A company whose income is profiting on DATA supplied by users?
We know they certainly implemented it at one point. So it’s not a big ask to do that for Messenger. And like someone said, would probably benefit them too since don’t have to give info they don’t have. But with it being closed source, it can’t be verified if they’re using it now.
Nobody said it was?
What is it you thought they were saying?
You seem confused. E2EE doesn’t mean peer-to-peer. Signal protocol isn’t peer-to-peer. You don’t need to be peer-to-peer to have secure communication because E2EE makes it so that the server can’t read what the two ends are writing.
Can you prove to me that WhatsApp actually encrypts the message on the phone in such a way that WhatsApp can’t see the message when it’s on their server?
Do you truly believe a company owned by Meta would provide that kind of security from THEM? A company whose income is profiting on DATA supplied by users?
Tell me you believe this.
We know they certainly implemented it at one point. So it’s not a big ask to do that for Messenger. And like someone said, would probably benefit them too since don’t have to give info they don’t have. But with it being closed source, it can’t be verified if they’re using it now.
Do you believe that Meta, if given the opportunity, would choose personal privacy over making money? It’s an easy yes, or no question to answer. 
What money?
Just money. Yes or no.
I need to know what your question means to answer it. What money are we talking about?