So you’re saying that a “black hat hacker” cannot exist, because by definition a hacker is not a malicious actor.

I never said that. I said:

Can we please stop using the word “hacker” when we mean “cybercriminals”, “attackers”, “malicious agents”?

Many of these cybercriminals, attackers, and malicious agents are, in fact, hackers. They are also techies. Would it make sense to say “Signal got hit by a techies’ attack”? No, obviously not — one chooses the most specific term that fits in the context. But “hacker” is not that in this particular case.

If a bank is robbed and it just so happens that every single member of the robbers’ team happens to be a driver, would you write “Bank robbed by drivers”? Or, to be even closer to the absurdity in that article, “Bank driven by drivers”? No, that would be silly. You would write instead: “Bank robbed by robbers”.

So instead of writing “Signal hacked by hackers” it really makes way more sense (and happens to also be more informative) to write “Signal attacked by state-sponsored attackers”, or whatever the specific case might be.

So everyone who is using the word “blackhat” is disrespectful towards those who identify as “hackers”, as much as using the N-word or F-word is disrespectful towards the respective communities.

No, but I would agree that people who knowingly misuse the word “hacker” when they mean “attacker”, etc., are disrespectful to the amazing, creative, inventive and inspiring people who often identify themselves as “hackers”. Come to a hacker con or camp one day and maybe you’ll get it.

I getting that right?

No, you are clearly arguing in bad faith, trying to put in my mouth something I did not say. And you know it very well.