zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. travis+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-16 21:19:23
Would invites be a solution? Anyone can sign up if they provide a number, otherwise you need an invite from someone with a number linked. It would clump the identity/legitimacy for all invitees into origin number, but still allow disparate accounts.
replies(1): >>novok+a1
2. novok+a1[view] [source] 2023-11-16 21:25:00
>>travis+(OP)
It’s not about legitimacy but having a bootstrapped contact list to talk to along with other user friction reasons
replies(1): >>serial+b5
◧◩
3. serial+b5[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 21:45:48
>>novok+a1
In that case it doesn't make sense to make it required.

Sure, I don't mind if they ask for my phone number if they think that's a better default onboarding flow, but allow users to bypass it.

With all that said, I don't think it's really only about user friction.

replies(1): >>illiac+S41
◧◩◪
4. illiac+S41[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 05:10:10
>>serial+b5
they did not "make it required", Signal was just never developed to support anything else for username/registration. Which is what they have now almost corrected.
replies(1): >>serial+3D1
◧◩◪◨
5. serial+3D1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 11:11:22
>>illiac+S41
sounds required to me.
replies(1): >>illiac+OQ1
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. illiac+OQ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 12:51:51
>>serial+3D1
It's wording then. Making something required sounds like an artificial limitation whereas implementing support for usernames requires a lot of work, it's not like they commented out a couple of lines on purpose.

What is required at the moment is any phone number, not your phone number. You can use a phone booth even.

[go to top]