3 ms·
>but he seems to mean “aren’t easy to monetize.” Signal is a non-profit entity.[1] E.g. Billionaire Brian Acton "donated" (aka 50-year loan at 0%) about $105
by jasode 5y ago
>but he seems to mean “aren’t easy to monetize.”
Signal is a non-profit entity.[1] E.g. Billionaire Brian Acton "donated" (aka 50-year loan at 0%) about $105 million to keep Signal running. If Signal has a monetizing agenda, they're going about it in a convoluted way.
[1] https://twitter.com/chrisjbakke/status/1348319406028296192 https://twitter.com/chrisjbakke/status/1348319406028296192
EDIT to reply: >, and from what i've read, Signal does monetize.
In precise terms, how exactly does Signal monetize? Every source I found says they're still running on donations: https://www.google.com/search?q=signal+technology+monetize+messenger https://www.google.com/search?q=signal+technology+monetize+m...
It's worth calling this out specifically so I can evaluate gp (jmbwell) accusations of Marlinspike's motives to write the essay for commercial gain rather than outline the technical pros/cons of federation.
- tomxor 5y agonon-profit doesn't mean no money, and from what i've read, Signal does monetize.
- freeopinion 5y agoA donation and a loan are not the same thing. Even for a 0% loan. This means Signal has an obligation to come up with $105 million somehow. So, at the least, they can monetize $105 million worth, and still be a non-profit. More likely, they need to monetize $2 million/year for that loan, plus however many $million/year to pay salaries, etc. just to break even and be "non-profit." When you pay a single developer $200K/year + $20K/year health insurance + $5K/year food, it's pretty easy to be a non-profit even when you are trying to be high-profit.