2 ms·

I disagree. These are valid points and dismissing them based on ignorance would be wrong. Instead we should discuss why these are not implemented and how could

• throwanem 10y ago
  That's not what the article you cite is saying. It's saying "don't use Signal because Signal is less than perfect". Calling the counterarguments in that thread "protectionism" suggests you feel likewise. If you want to discuss how a follow-on from Signal could and maybe should address some or all of those points, great! That's a conversation worth having. But it doesn't sound from your toplevel comment as though it is the conversation you're trying to start.
  • bahjoite 10y ago
    > It's saying "don't use Signal because Signal is less than perfect". This is mis-categorisation. The article says "I won't recommend the use of Signal" and gives reasons and desired improvements.
  • eveningcoffee 10y ago
    I call it protectionism because it tries to dismiss the issues instead of discussing them. I think that you are misinterpreting the articles intention. It is more complex than a single statement. I believe that the author wants Signal to change in certain direction. It is hard to do when the userbase is growing regardless and people are not aware of the issues.