3 ms·
Is it possible that Signal don't want to go down this path as it potentially puts them at the whim of the demands or requirements of paying businesses? Which de
by circularfoyers 5y ago
Is it possible that Signal don't want to go down this path as it potentially puts them at the whim of the demands or requirements of paying businesses? Which demands/requirements may not be aligned with the degree of privacy which set them apart from other messenging apps.
If not this, could another reason might be that they're still a small team and this, along with the other changes that would presumably need to come along with it (accounts that aren't tied to a phone number), are what are holding them back.
- blitzar 5y ago> are what are holding them back No, integrating a get rich quick for the founders shit coin into their app is what is holding them back.
- XorNot 5y agoI don't really see how the demands of the core product - E2EE messaging to customers - can be compromised by accepting payment for one of the core problems of E2EE when legal entities are involved: establishing trust. Signal aren't allowing accounts not tied to phone numbers because it currently serves a very useful spam mitigation problem for them. There's no real alternative there that's going to solve it without more work on the business side. Technically the phone number requirement right now means they do charge for "named" accounts, they just don't get paid for them - the phone providers do, since in many countries even prepaid phones require proof of identity to activate.