4 ms·
> It suggests that the people behind Signal may not be as trustworthy as they're made out to be. trust only works in retrospect (it can't be extended into the
by DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> It suggests that the people behind Signal may not be as trustworthy as they're made out to be.
trust only works in retrospect (it can't be extended into the future to a party simply because they make a promise)
all such relationships have an expiry date (since as the trusted party evolves or needs to reinvent itself to satisfy shareholders). what can prevent this are bullet-proof contracts (that's not how people make decisions though - they never read the fine-print, review it when it changes and instead work on gut-feeling and emotions).
putting your trust into a brand/product is always going to eventually hurt you. A product having reached the size of Signal will most certainly throw part of it's user-base to the curb if it thinks it's held back by their opinions/goals.
The disconnect is people thinking Signal owes them something (when everybody actually used it for free until now).
- jeltz 6y agoNot everybody. The people who donated to the project owes Moxie not using their money to get rich off a pump and dump scheme.
- noja 6y ago> trust only works in retrospect Nonsense. Trust provides a basis for present and future dealings.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y agoplease get in touch by email, I have a business proposal for you. I highly recommend Robert Cialdini before making opinionated comments on trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
- user-the-name 6y agoNo, because, and this is very crucial: I don't trust you.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y agosounds like you did not understand that this was rhetorical?
- user-the-name 6y agoI understood that perfectly, and I pointed out to you that your rhetorical argument is invalid.