I think the confusion/difficulty is the mistake that the PDF rendering is happening client side. I don't know this for certain since I haven't spent any time trying to break it, but based on the solutions I have found online leads me to believe that these view only PDFs are server side rendered and what is sent to your browser is only an image.
PDF is a weird file format... It is sometimes just a bunch of jpeg images of pages (scanners that don't do ocr generate PDFs this way) And the PDF isn't anything more than a collection of jpeg images... Or it can be a fully text based document using a proprietary rendering language that needs to be rendered to be viewed... Or it's a series of printer commands that would tell a printer how to print it...
In any case PDF viewers are super complex (basically they need to know how to render all of those different kinds of instructions into a standard document for viewing) and often times they are implemented as image generators (because basically that's what they are, it's also why some PDF viewers don't have text search or form filling, and it's part of why PDF editors are so complex). The result of this is that it's possible that the Google view of the PDF isn't a PDF document... And only the server side rendering of it which means that when the view only option is enabled... There is no PDF to download. You aren't looking at the PDF file. You are looking at the rendering result of the PDF viewer running on a Google server.
In this case you can't download the PDFs... Your best option is to take screen capture of the pages, and run ocr on them.
Basically Google servers are printing the PDF to your screen. You dumb scan it, which generates a PDF that is a collection of jpeg images, then you ocr it, which generates a text version of the PDF.
Those js script snippets literally are a dumb scanner for your screen... That make a PDF from a collection of jpeg images.
If they say unmetered they mean unmetered. You can check the fine print, for data reprioritizing rules.
Ultimately if it's unmetered, you can compute your maximum theoretical usage based on your actual speed. For example a 1gigbit port can transfer about 333TB each way.
But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said?
You haven't addressed any of them? How does the fact that servers can be spun up in different countries affect those countries ability to inject backdoors into servers hosted in their country? When did I ever say block or remove communities? How does restricted legal access to third party clients like element confound the situation?
It's like you have some strawman argument setup and you are shouting at the void...
Literally nothing you have posted on this thread is relevant to what I have posted.
In context, disambiguating "matrix" the protocol, "matrix.org" the server and "element" the application obviously implies that "matrix.org" is not being referred to as the domain name.
"Matrix.org" in this case should be abstracted to mean the service as a whole providing the matrix.org website, matrix protocol endpoints, hosting solutions, business and other accoutrements.
The original question was in relation to signal vs matrix. "Signal" in this context refers to more than just the dns entry, business, protocol, frontend application or other elements. It should be obvious that referring to "Signal" implies all of these elements. Which is where my reply comes into effect.
You made the mistake of mistaking the organization (and all related services) of "element" and "matrix.org" and the matrix protocol. These are not the same thing. In the context of using the name of the thing to refer to the organization, servers and other errata; "Element" refers to a single independent organization and application that provides a single implementation of a client side portion of the matrix protocol. "Matrix.org" is a separate, independent organization that is providing a server implementation of the matrix protocol.
Your guess that "matrix" and "element" are interchangeable in the original article is incorrect. "Matrix.org" is a separate organization from "element".
From this point of view, coming back with the statement "matrix.org is a domain name" is frankly insulting.
And the Japanese government can force a backdoor into a server hosted in Japan. I don't know what your point is or how it differs from what I said.
Governments can absolutely force backdoors into individual servers. The point you are making about the UK is true for any matrix servers hosted in or by a UK entity. It's not isolated to Signal. It's debatable if matrix clients will be legal to distribute in the UK after their law goes into effect.
I have to run my own cell tower because I live in a literal dead zone.
Edit: I checked Verizon, 90 bucks for 50mbps with a 300gb data limits. Yay.