While I understand the desire for 2FA as well as the need for additional security, I see no reason at all to resort to shaming tactics (examples below) to try to force the developers to prioritize this over other things they may be working on.

"... and claim to care about your users."
"... utterly irresponsible ..."
"... take the hit ... and be a responsible company that cares about its users ..."

If you want a feature to be implemented, post it or vote on what's already posted instead of putting it "a little differently." There's nothing new about your request except the shaming statements added to it. It's not helpful and there's no need at all for it. If the product doesn't suit your needs, find another one.

Thanks for the considered response. But it's hardly "shaming", just emphasising the fundamental importance of security as a basic prerequisite for a service where people store personal data, not something you implement as a result of a popularity contest.

I stand 100% by what I said that it's irresponsible to run a service without robust authentication. I can see that some people would find the phrasing too strong, sure, but seriously, take a look at the consequences of weak authentication on users when things go wrong, and ask yourself what you'd be posting on this forum if it had happened to you.

"If the product doesn't suit your needs, find another one"

I'll be doing exactly that come renewal time. I really will be sad to leave RTM - it's been my favourite service and I've used it daily since signing up, but it's increasingly hard to justify paying for a service where the security of users is seen as optional.