3 ms·

I agree with you. All I see here is evidence of a sensible team pondering about the future of their product in light of recent events, both the potential for t

by tailspin2019 6y ago

I agree with you. All I see here is evidence of a sensible team pondering about the future of their product in light of recent events, both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet if it becomes the platform of choice for an unsavoury audience. Neither of which they have much control over. I would be more worried if people at Signal were not thinking about this, debating the issues and reflecting on the direction of their product. I thought the article (despite the over-egged headline) was interesting and not particularly hysterical. What I don’t see here is anyone actually suggesting they compromise E2E or any of the fundamentals of the product that we like in Signal. I feel strongly that Signal needs to stay moving in the direction it’s heading - which is to be a no-bullshit, secure, E2E encrypted, reliable and open platform with none of the data-hoarding of its rivals. I do not see any harm in Signal self-reflecting in particular in light of recent events. A “head in the sand” approach seems worse. I’m surprised by the cynical comments here so far. How about we take a charitable read of this?

ironman1478 6y ago
Yeah you summed up what I was trying to say more clearly.
mc32 6y ago
> "both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet..." The potential? Seriously? There is no question a service like this will be abused (Let's ask Erdogan this question). No serious criminal is going to NOT consider using Signal as a comms medium. People who need to evade snooping will use it. People who need privacy will use it. As for the other. For this product, either you believe in your principles or you don't. It was the whole premise of the product. Without it, there is no need for it. There are "better" (easier) alternatives. It's like building a back-up product and saying, you know, we could save costs by not always reliably having the expected data. Yes, true. But why have your product in the first place?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The point is that it's good for a company to be willing to discuss these things. If Signal had a culture where the principles and direction of the company are beyond discussion, that'd be a problem - both because it would make Signal a worse place to work, and because it would make compromising the spirit of the principles much easier. It's probably helpful to look at a less emotionally charged principle like "customer focused". If your company enshrines "customer focus" as an inviolate principle, and nobody's comfortable discussing the value or meaning of "customer focus", you won't end up with a laser focus on the customer. You'll end up rudderless, because anyone skilled at office politics can justify whatever they want to do by declaring it customer focused.

ironman1478 6y ago

Yeah you summed up what I was trying to say more clearly.

mc32 6y ago

> "both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet..." The potential? Seriously? There is no question a service like this will be abused (Let's ask Erdogan this question). No serious criminal is going to NOT consider using Signal as a comms medium. People who need to evade snooping will use it. People who need privacy will use it. As for the other. For this product, either you believe in your principles or you don't. It was the whole premise of the product. Without it, there is no need for it. There are "better" (easier) alternatives. It's like building a back-up product and saying, you know, we could save costs by not always reliably having the expected data. Yes, true. But why have your product in the first place?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The point is that it's good for a company to be willing to discuss these things. If Signal had a culture where the principles and direction of the company are beyond discussion, that'd be a problem - both because it would make Signal a worse place to work, and because it would make compromising the spirit of the principles much easier. It's probably helpful to look at a less emotionally charged principle like "customer focused". If your company enshrines "customer focus" as an inviolate principle, and nobody's comfortable discussing the value or meaning of "customer focus", you won't end up with a laser focus on the customer. You'll end up rudderless, because anyone skilled at office politics can justify whatever they want to do by declaring it customer focused.