Not sure if any of you have encountered the same resistance to using Signal. Some of my cousins refused to use Signal because they are already using “too many chat apps” (e.g. WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, WeChat, Telegram, Line, Snapchat, etc.). To them, Signal will just be another chat app among their numerous other chat apps. I understand that jumping between so many messaging apps imposes some kind of cognitive and maintenance burden. What are some ways to convince such people to use Signal?
It was not foolish. It was a security decision and the right one. The goal of signal isn’t to have billions of users, the goal is to become a privacy and security centered app. If a feature prevents that it should be immediately removed.
Minor UI tweaks would have been sufficient, like dark patterns to encourage sending secure messages to other signal users by default. Instead, they removed a stand-out feature that made new-user adoption so much easier than other apps. Now, they’re just one of many secure messaging apps, and they’re not the best one in any way.
I recently switched back to android, i was excited to use signal as my SMS client and then encourage my friends to use it as well. Now there’s no reason to choose Signal at all.
They can pat themselves on the back all they want, but im convinced they made the change for the same reason causing so much enshitification of the internet these days: they want to lock-in their users.
How is it locking in if it is obvious they did something that 1) many people don’t like and thus left signal for and 2) as you pointed out, they have many identical competitors? That’s not convincing at all given the other parts of your argument.
many people don’t like and thus left signal for
Is there any evidence of this? Because if anything, anecdotally, I’ve seen an increase in my circles and I’ve stopped trying to get people over after I convinced my small circle to hop on.
So why do they only allow users to signup to Signal with a phone number? If they really were about privacy and security, they should allow signups via username+password only.
There so much money to be made for just knowing who is talking to who. Who is using the app and when. Even if they can’t get at the content of your messages.
I don’t trust them one bit.
First, you’re conflating privacy with anonymity.
Secondly, they are one of the few orgs (maybe only?) that have been subpoenaed multiple times and they’ve published documented evidence [0] that even when compelled by law to present all the info they have on any specific user, all they know is:
- The date you created an account
- The last day (not time) one of your clients messaged their
Feel free to trust whoever you want, but the source code to Signal’s clients and server are open for anyone to criticize, and they have been. They’re not perfect, nobody is, but they’re also one of the few orgs out there showing that they’re willing to put up or shut up.
Criticize in a constructive manner. Don’t be dismissive and spread FUD by stating “I don’t trust them” without backing up understanding the Signal threat model and mixing up privacy & anonymity.
You confuse privacy and security with anonymity, they are different things. Also, with the sealed senders option, the sender are hidden.
The person I’m talking to is allowed to know who I am so I’m not anonymous. Signal doesn’t need to know who I am. It doesn’t matter what you call it, that’s the feature I’m waiting for to motivate a switch.
That said, I looked up sealed senders. They really do go above and beyond to end2end encrypt as much as they possibly can.
It’s just a shame that they insist so hard to tie user accounts to phone numbers.
