Telegram's founder Pavel Durov says his company only employs around 30 engineers. Security experts say that raises serious questions about the company's cybersecurity.
I’m a signal donor and while I disagree with your point regarding UI (have you used in the past couple of years? It’s went from feeling dated to feeling pretty modern), I agree with the rest.
Even worse, though, is that the EU offered them the opportunity to become relevant on a silver platter, by forcing WhatsApp to open up their app and be cross-platform with others who want to. Signal said no thanks.
I get it, WhatsApp stores metadata, and Signal doesn’t like that. But they were fine with (way way worse) SMS for a while? The day Signal chose that path was the day Signal willingly chose to be irrelevant for the vast vast vast majority of people.
… agreeing to be directly compatible with Whatsapp would mean they agree to surrender the privacy for every single instance of Signal-WhatsApp communication.
If the whole reason for your foundations existence is privacy, it seems that it would be an existential danger to create a partnership with the implicit understanding that it will destroy privacy.
What do you think happens to the nonprofit foundation built entirely around a fanatical devotion to privacy, if they partnered with Facebook. Not just partnered with, but in doing so, weakened the overall privacy of their platform.
Putting aside adoption rates, how does that impact their organizational sustainment and viability e.g. their ability to draw in donations, retain talent, or stay independent?
That all gets better due to having far more users. You can’t just say “let’s ignore adoption rate” - that’s a pretty huge deal. It’s by far and away the main thing that holds them back.
And again, they were fine with SMS, which is far far worse.
I’m a signal donor and while I disagree with your point regarding UI (have you used in the past couple of years? It’s went from feeling dated to feeling pretty modern), I agree with the rest.
Even worse, though, is that the EU offered them the opportunity to become relevant on a silver platter, by forcing WhatsApp to open up their app and be cross-platform with others who want to. Signal said no thanks.
I get it, WhatsApp stores metadata, and Signal doesn’t like that. But they were fine with (way way worse) SMS for a while? The day Signal chose that path was the day Signal willingly chose to be irrelevant for the vast vast vast majority of people.
… agreeing to be directly compatible with Whatsapp would mean they agree to surrender the privacy for every single instance of Signal-WhatsApp communication.
If the whole reason for your foundations existence is privacy, it seems that it would be an existential danger to create a partnership with the implicit understanding that it will destroy privacy.
Some level of privacy, yes. Solely in WhatsApp-signal chats. And users can be notified of that, like they were with SMS.
But you know what the alternative is? Nobody using signal. And that’s objectively worse.
Cross-compatibility with WhatsApp would mean way more people on signal, and way more people willing to try, meaning more signal-signal chats.
Signal-SMS is FAR less private, but they were fine with that for years.
Those choices don’t occur in a vacuum.
What do you think happens to the nonprofit foundation built entirely around a fanatical devotion to privacy, if they partnered with Facebook. Not just partnered with, but in doing so, weakened the overall privacy of their platform.
Putting aside adoption rates, how does that impact their organizational sustainment and viability e.g. their ability to draw in donations, retain talent, or stay independent?
That all gets better due to having far more users. You can’t just say “let’s ignore adoption rate” - that’s a pretty huge deal. It’s by far and away the main thing that holds them back.
And again, they were fine with SMS, which is far far worse.