{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibgao2yruzwny4qxs2tpow7cca3qmcbkuykii6ebyfyohfk7bopdm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjgi57j6xlr2"
  },
  "path": "/t/proton-meet-isnt-what-they-told-you-it-was/36865?page=2#post_31",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-14T02:34:26.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "tags": [
    "burden of proof",
    "[1]",
    "https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof",
    "↩︎"
  ],
  "textContent": "DanielM:\n\n>   * How do you know that Claude’s new model hasn’t cracked a “modern” encryption algorithm? Do you have any specific, clear, high-quality, verifiable (at least accessible to me), official sources, at the very least?\n>\n\n\nThe burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I absolutely support proactively moving to quantum-safe encryption — not that I know anything about that.\n\n> ## You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.\n>\n> The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.[1]\n\n* * *\n\n  1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof ↩︎\n\n\n",
  "title": "Proton Meet Isn't What They Told You It Was"
}