Refusing to use Signal: "I have too many messaging apps"
Refusing to use Signal: "I have too many messaging apps"
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?
"This is the only one I use. If you need to reach me either do it on that or email me." Worked for my family.
I second this. I made an effort a while back to cut all Meta products out of my digital life. And this was the reasoning I gave to friends and family as well. Especially as I had no interest at all to use more than one messaging app.
Worked pretty well.
It was a lot easier to convince people (and myself) to use signal when it also did SMS. When that feature was removed it certainly felt like another app to worry about.
The loss of SMS really diminished Signal's attractiveness as a messaging app. I still use it because moving the few that I have convinced to employ it as a vector for communication to something more obscure would be even more tiresome.
I have encountered this too. I don't force people to use Signal, but I also don't use any other messenger, so if they want to contact me they will just have the use it and else the content is probably just not that important.
Honestly wish a matrix client that made Facebook,discord,sms,signal, bridging existed. I also hate jumping between chats. People know signal is the way to a hold of me (it's on my computer and phone!), Sms/calls are the next, and anything else is like throwing paper airplanes at my house.
Anyone who I message regularly, I say "Telegram/Signal or expect long response times"
Signal made a foolish decision to remove SMS support from their app. It was a good way to get people in to use the app and build the user base - it's easier to say to people "try signal, it also replaces your text messaging app" than to say "try this other messenger in addition to your texting app and whatsapp and etc..."
When they made the decision it was also announced on a pompous and self congratulatory way in my opinion. They posted a long post talking about being more secure rather than recognising that they were inconveniencing their users by removing a feature. Users can't decide how someone is going to send them a message but they can be advocates for adopting signal when they receive an SMS from someone.
There seems to be a lack of awareness in the Signal team of the strategic benefit of supporting SMS, when you're competing with other convenient but not as secure popular systems like WhatsApp you need a unique selling point. An all-in-one approach was a good trojan horse way of getting signals secure comms into people's lives.
While I believe in Signal I find myself defaulting to WhatsApp and my SMS messenger. Even people I know who do have signal, and who I conversed with previously are preferring to contact me via WhatsApp now. Signal is the more secure and independent option but it's convenience that really drives adoption for a lot of users.
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.