• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    I love this app but the way the project is managed baffles me sometimes.

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      … 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.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.