“I don’t understand the added value here,” one official wrote on an internal staff message board, seen by POLITICO. Another described the tool as “absolute shit.”

A third official said that, judging matters on how well Element Pro works compared to Teams, the U.S. would “instantly win the war” if it ever decided to switch off its technology. All the officials were granted anonymity to speak freely.

How is this a credible and justified critique and why is it worthy of a Politico article?

The first two should never have gone to print, these are unqualified personal options. The third one somehow makes the claim that, because Element does not functionally behave like teams, the US would somehow be able to switch it off more easily in a war scenario....? That isn't even coherent logic on the surface. And none of the three statements make sense when you consider that the tool is supposed to improve data security and operational resilience.

They should not have quoted random user feedback. The critique in this article, which has somehow made it into the headline, has about the same substance as a random angry Google or Yelp review.