zlacker

>>mikece+(OP)
Seriously consider setting up a recurring donation if you prefer Signal. They have delivered consistently over the years. I set the $20/month back when they introduced the option.

I'm curious what the breakdown of donations is. I only have 1 contact with a $10/month and 1 with a $5/month badge. Of course there could be others not displaying the badge. Signal really needs 500,000 people giving $20/month and plus the rich guys giving some millions on top of that to be in a safe financial position.

Maybe something that could be done to encourage donations is have the client estimate how much raw infra costs your usage created and display in the donation screen.

>>Canada+kb
I fail to understand the point of supporting an organization that is completely against self-sovereignty like Signal is. Why would I want to pay someone to develop something that traps me into their platform and does not offer a way out?

>>rglull+Vu
Not completely ? Their server seems to be open source too now (with the exception of the spam filter) ?

>>BlueTe+Ex
Can I operate my own Signal server and talk with people on the "main" one?

>>rglull+lA
You're moving the goal post from "self-sovereignty" to supports federation with an infinite number of servers. Nothing is stopping you from compiling your own Signal server and modifying a Signal client to use your server.

Given that Signal is free as a service, supporting federation only increases their expenses.

>>Caliga+oE
Without federation, Signal is still working with the advantage of network effects. So an open source server is not enough of a way out.

Element can do it for their Matrix servers. Process.one can do it for ejabberd. Prosody as well. Why can't Signal?

>>rglull+GH
Because centralisation provides ecosystem agility, which they absolutely value as an upside. Find a way of doing post-quantum secure key exchange? Just roll it out to the server and all the clients essentially overnight.

They've talked about this, a lot.

>>growse+ab5
I'm well aware of their justifications. I'm also aware that centralization brings systemic risks, which they don't talk about.

The internet would be a lot more efficient and able to evolve if we just had it controlled by one single entity like Google or Microsoft. Do you think is a good idea to do that?

The economy would be a lot more efficient and allocation of resources could be a lot more fair if we could put it all in the hands of one single corporation or government. Do you think it's a good idea to do that?

Agricultural output would improve significantly if all crops used the exact same genetic strain and if all soil was artificially managed. Do you think it's a good idea to do that?

In case you are wondering, "ability to quickly roll out post-quantum key exchange" is waaaaay down the list of my worries compared to "facing a catastrophic Black Swan affecting all of the world's communications".

>>rglull+lk5
Signal is so far from being a monopoly that runs "all the world's communications" that these comparisons are essentially meaningless.

There's plenty of diversity in the messaging space. Decide your values, choose your compromises, pick your platform. Simple.

>>growse+0B6
Some people avoid platforms out of principle. Look up «protocols, not platforms» if you have never heard of it.