Privacy is Priceless, but Signal is Expensive
Privacy is Priceless, but Signal is Expensive
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 approxima...
The article about the blog post adds nothing.
Adds negative value by introducing confusion
"If you want to use signal it will cost you"
@ooli@lemmy.world could you swap the article and title with the better source?
Lemmy lets you edit titles after the fact. You can leave an explanation for the swap in the post body, and leave the original link there too if you want
That headline is just dumb.
To put it bluntly, as a nonprofit we don’t have investors or profit-minded board members knocking during hard times, urging us to “sacrifice a little privacy” in the name of hitting growth and monetary targets.
Good, I've been a regular donor for almost a year now.
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
For something less centralized, Matrix already exists. In my experience, the UX isn't as smooth as Signal, and it seems like mainstream users have very little patience for rough edges in UX anymore.
I upped my monthly sub.
Dumb clickbait title smh
Permanently Deleted
It's unusual phrasing, but not wrong. It doesn't say specifically who is using, or will have to pay the $50M. You're only assuming it's about each of us individually.
exactly, I don't like the wording, but I do question people's reading abilities if they misinterpret that headline.
[People] Using Signal Will Soon Cost [Operators] $50 Million a Year.
How else would you read it? Each user paying $50M lol?
two sides of the same coin, just a badly phrased sentence
[People] Using Signal Will Soon Cost [Operators] $50 Million a Year.
if you read it as each user paying $50M, maybe touch some grass
Gamblers HATE this one not-side-of-the-coin-they-flipped!
Permanently Deleted
I don't think I am going to be able to afford it.
Shit, I can't afford that
Plebs 😤
I was just talking with a friend about why people trust signal so much and this article is a wonderful example of why