What is wrong with the wording of the title? The first line is "Signal is warning that an anti-encryption bill circulating in Congress could force the private messaging app to pull out of the US market." Being forced out of the market is different than "threatening to dump the market".
It might be a bit hyperbolic, but the end result is the same. Rather than compromising the integrity of their app, they'd rather no longer offer it to an entire country's market. Whether it is "dumping" the users or "pulling" out of the market, what's the difference? Lavabit shut their entire operation down once they were forced to compromise their system. While Lavabit didn't have much notice, Signal is signaling their intent to their users. If that signals their users to take action by contacting their congress critters to put pressure, then it seems like a good idea.
The bill seems like it would result in forcing e2e out of the market. Each product that offers e2e would then need to make a choice. Remove e2e or keep e2e. If they keep e2e then either they proactively dump the US market or they face legal peril. It seems like the same thing to me.
They don't want to offer a product that doesn't support e2e.
