Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The headline is reasonable because you can be put in a position in which you're not forced to do something, but it's extremely unreasonable not to do that thing. They weren't forced to close down per se, but their other options were extremely infeasible or reprehensible.
Arguably it is a problem they created by the architecture they chose, in which this is a fatal flaw of design that was almost certainly something that could be anticipated.
It's also hard to create a system that's private and secure, and it's vastly less convenient to use which increases friction and drives down adoption. PGP, for example, is very good but extremely inconvenient to use all the time.
As an outsider, I think I understand the rationale behind their design decisions. Just saying it should have been more carefully created with privacy in mind glosses over the many complexities and difficulties that design goal entails.
We, as creators of software, have problems that are more political than technical, no matter where we are in the world.