I use Signal (centralised) and Matrix (federated) as my primary messengers. They both have their pros/cons, but this article is a pretty lazy attempt to paint S

I use Signal (centralised) and Matrix (federated) as my primary messengers. They both have their pros/cons, but this article is a pretty lazy attempt to paint Signal as some anti-competitive "authoritarianism". The article has two main points: 1) Signal is a centralised platform 2) Signal has prohibited other projects from using Signal's servers. Addressing point (2) first since it is the most absurd: Projects like LibreSignal and Wire attempted to build projects (and in the latter case, a product) using Signal's infrastructure. LibreSignal even was using Signal's name in the product. Simply put, Signal's servers are Signal's. It's their right to prevent other groups from using its own infrastructure for their own products. It's a matter of (a) legal liability (b) assuring users aren't confusing improperly implemented clients as Signal's own. Fret not, the Signal server implementation is up on GitHub. Run your own server, assure that you're not using someone else's copyrighted name as your project name, and you're all set! In fact, that's precisely what Wire managed to do. Addressing point(1), the reason I use Signal AND Matrix is because while I really dig Matrix, it is just many orders of magnitude easier for me to on-board non-technical friends and family on to Signal and Matrix, and that's almost entirely due to it's centralised nature. What's more, I frankly do trust Signal's crypto (marginally) more than Matrix's. It's not possible to send unencrypted messages on Signal, I've rarely if ever been asked to verify codes, and I know that Signal doesn't store metadata while Matrix does. Matrix is wonderful, I use it all the time, but it's not a panacea. Same goes for Signal, for which I can't self-host, or run inter-app bridges or bots. So all that to say, this article was pretty lazy and imho exceptionally unconvincing.