4 ms·

Signal is a nonprofit though. They shouldn't be under pressure to create business.

by als0 4y ago

sschueller 4y ago
Non profit but still against federation or anyone running an alternative client. Why?
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  It's a non profit so it can receive donations, but the developer is a LLC that's run for profit. It's a similar story in almost all software companies that market themselves as non-profit foundations (Mozilla too btw) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation#Signal_Messenger_LLC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation#Signal_Mes...
  - Vinnl 4y ago
    The effect is the same as it is for "regular" non-profits: there are no shareholders (other than the non-profit), and so no incentives to maximise profits. (Of course employees and board members can still receive handsome compensation, but the same holds true for regular non-profits.)
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    There are some things non-profits are not allowed to do. But, owning a for-profit isn't one of them, and the for-profit is allowed to do those things. So hence this is a common strategy. Example: Suppose I bulk buy T-shirts printed with my cool logo for $15 each and I sell them to consumers for $50 each. That's a for-profit activity, if Walmart was allowed to have a "non-profit" arm which did this I'm sure they would, the tax saving would be considerable.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      That's decidedly not what "nonprofit" means. A nonprofit can absolutely fundraise like that, and pay the employees above market salaries, or they can use the funds for other things, they just can't return them to shareholders (of which there aren't any), or the board.
- m12k 4y ago
  The good answer: They can't verify the integrity of alternative clients and that they don't leak info The other answer: They've got somewhat of a "we know best" vibe going for them which also comes in play when you see their response to feature requests - e.g. for usernames instead of phone numbers or for "edit message" functionality like Telegram has.
  - Vinnl 4y ago
    I don't know what response to username feature requests you're talking about, but AFAIK they've been saying for a long time already that they're working on that — but it's a significant rework of their architecture, so it understandably is taking a long time, especially to also do so in a privacy preserving way.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >The good answer: They can't verify the integrity of alternative clients and that they don't leak info The good answer isn't even a good argument. The client is open source. People have forked it and used the Signal network. Signal asked them to stop and they did, but there is nothing stopping people from ignoring Signal's request in the future. This has nothing to do with federation. Signal could federate their network and still request everybody use the official client.
    - Klonoar 4y ago
      Your point in no way explains why the argument from Signal is bad, and arguably completely misses the point.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        My point is client integrity and federation of servers are not related.
    - atonse 4y ago
      What exactly is the problem anyone would be trying to solve by adding third party clients?
- Vinnl 4y ago
  That's described here: https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ (And also extensively discussed elsewhere on HN already, if you want to dive into it some more.)
- cvwright 4y ago
  Because federation is seriously difficult — look at all the effort the Matrix team has put in, and it’s still not quite 100%. Plus yes Signal has a bit of an NIH complex.
  - admax88qqq 4y ago
    Matrix federation is hard because they want to support large IRV style rooms with consistent history and strong controls to prevent room takeovers. Signal is more focused on 1:1 or small group chats. Federation there can be much simpler, more like email/xmpp than IRC. It does still add friction and slows down youe development as upgrading is difficult.
    - saynay 4y ago
      Signal also has a grand total of 40 employees. Keeping the application running on the various platforms takes a decent chunk of their time. Difficult development to add something like federation cannot be expected to happen quickly.
- johnchristopher 4y ago
  You know perfectly why, as your comment history shows.

Signal is a nonprofit though. They shouldn't be under pressure to create business.

by als0 4y ago

Signal is a nonprofit though. They shouldn't be under pressure to create business.

sschueller 4y ago

Non profit but still against federation or anyone running an alternative client. Why?

411111111111111 4y ago
It's a non profit so it can receive donations, but the developer is a LLC that's run for profit. It's a similar story in almost all software companies that market themselves as non-profit foundations (Mozilla too btw) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation#Signal_Messenger_LLC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation#Signal_Mes...
- Vinnl 4y ago
  The effect is the same as it is for "regular" non-profits: there are no shareholders (other than the non-profit), and so no incentives to maximise profits. (Of course employees and board members can still receive handsome compensation, but the same holds true for regular non-profits.)
- tialaramex 4y ago
  There are some things non-profits are not allowed to do. But, owning a for-profit isn't one of them, and the for-profit is allowed to do those things. So hence this is a common strategy. Example: Suppose I bulk buy T-shirts printed with my cool logo for $15 each and I sell them to consumers for $50 each. That's a for-profit activity, if Walmart was allowed to have a "non-profit" arm which did this I'm sure they would, the tax saving would be considerable.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    That's decidedly not what "nonprofit" means. A nonprofit can absolutely fundraise like that, and pay the employees above market salaries, or they can use the funds for other things, they just can't return them to shareholders (of which there aren't any), or the board.
m12k 4y ago
The good answer: They can't verify the integrity of alternative clients and that they don't leak info The other answer: They've got somewhat of a "we know best" vibe going for them which also comes in play when you see their response to feature requests - e.g. for usernames instead of phone numbers or for "edit message" functionality like Telegram has.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  I don't know what response to username feature requests you're talking about, but AFAIK they've been saying for a long time already that they're working on that — but it's a significant rework of their architecture, so it understandably is taking a long time, especially to also do so in a privacy preserving way.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >The good answer: They can't verify the integrity of alternative clients and that they don't leak info The good answer isn't even a good argument. The client is open source. People have forked it and used the Signal network. Signal asked them to stop and they did, but there is nothing stopping people from ignoring Signal's request in the future. This has nothing to do with federation. Signal could federate their network and still request everybody use the official client.
  - Klonoar 4y ago
    Your point in no way explains why the argument from Signal is bad, and arguably completely misses the point.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      My point is client integrity and federation of servers are not related.
  - atonse 4y ago
    What exactly is the problem anyone would be trying to solve by adding third party clients?
Vinnl 4y ago
That's described here: https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ (And also extensively discussed elsewhere on HN already, if you want to dive into it some more.)
cvwright 4y ago
Because federation is seriously difficult — look at all the effort the Matrix team has put in, and it’s still not quite 100%. Plus yes Signal has a bit of an NIH complex.
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  Matrix federation is hard because they want to support large IRV style rooms with consistent history and strong controls to prevent room takeovers. Signal is more focused on 1:1 or small group chats. Federation there can be much simpler, more like email/xmpp than IRC. It does still add friction and slows down youe development as upgrading is difficult.
  - saynay 4y ago
    Signal also has a grand total of 40 employees. Keeping the application running on the various platforms takes a decent chunk of their time. Difficult development to add something like federation cannot be expected to happen quickly.
johnchristopher 4y ago
You know perfectly why, as your comment history shows.