Signal has taken a bold step in transparency by unveiling the operational expenses of its messenger service, a move aimed at safeguarding user privacy. In a recent blog post, the Signal Foundation, responsible for managing Signal, detailed the operating costs for the first time, disclosing approximately $40 million for the
I donated, and planned to continue yearly, but then they added a cryptocurrency in a very obvious pump and dump scam — MobileCoin; brand new, untested, for-profit startup owned, VC funded, in which the Signal CEO was an adviser and potential investor, with all “coins” privately pre-sold to VC’s and other investors.
I haven’t recommended Signal since, and refuse to donate until that shit is removed.
IMO Signal should only be seen as temporary until a stronger competitor is built. Being centralised and US based is a deal breaker, long term. The permanent communication service, that humanity should ultimately rely on, must be completely decentralised and capable of transacting via a client-based P2P mesh network, that is independent of commercial internet infrastructure… e.g. it can continue operating phone to phone, router to router, etc, using wifi/bluetooth if the internet is cut, whether by government action or natural disaster.
Nothing is black and white or pure. The list of features of a large-scale system like this includes its popularity. Signal excels at that compared to many alternatives and personally I think that’s worth a few transgressions. I too dream of a P2P system but I can’t see how underfunding Signal would help reach that goal. If anything having one popular open source non-profit platform could make it easier to get P2P. For example by pushing the popular platform to implement it.
I donated, and planned to continue yearly, but then they added a cryptocurrency in a very obvious pump and dump scam — MobileCoin; brand new, untested, for-profit startup owned, VC funded, in which the Signal CEO was an adviser and potential investor, with all “coins” privately pre-sold to VC’s and other investors.
I haven’t recommended Signal since, and refuse to donate until that shit is removed.
IMO Signal should only be seen as temporary until a stronger competitor is built. Being centralised and US based is a deal breaker, long term. The permanent communication service, that humanity should ultimately rely on, must be completely decentralised and capable of transacting via a client-based P2P mesh network, that is independent of commercial internet infrastructure… e.g. it can continue operating phone to phone, router to router, etc, using wifi/bluetooth if the internet is cut, whether by government action or natural disaster.
Nothing is black and white or pure. The list of features of a large-scale system like this includes its popularity. Signal excels at that compared to many alternatives and personally I think that’s worth a few transgressions. I too dream of a P2P system but I can’t see how underfunding Signal would help reach that goal. If anything having one popular open source non-profit platform could make it easier to get P2P. For example by pushing the popular platform to implement it.
deleted