The wired article *itself* (presumably prompted by the cryptocat author) says SSL is "known to be broken". So you _can't_ trust the folks running the website. It's a self contradiction.
Is _some_ security better than none? Perhaps, but probably only when you're dealing with foes less capable & with fewer resources than a nation state. However if a false sense of security encourages someone to be more loose-lipped and candid, then it can be _very_ dangerous.
A slightly half-baked "some security is better than none" attitude may be fine for you, but I suspect _you're_ not the one that's going to get tortured, the person you're talking to in [dictatorship] _is_.
The problem with cryptocat's message is it is *far* less secure than it purports to be.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds