4 ms·

If they sell anything at all, it exposes them to the local regulations of wherever they are taking money, and then the survival of the org and technology become

If they sell anything at all, it exposes them to the local regulations of wherever they are taking money, and then the survival of the org and technology becomes dependent on the income, which has conditions attached to it. Saying Signal should sell something is like recommending someone develop a drug habit.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Signal Foundation is incorporated in America, so they're already exposed to American regulations. They could sell things (tshirts or exclusive client features or something) in America without exposing themselves more than they already are.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  I thought about merch and things like that, but really, this is an open source project that a lot of people depend on, and it just happens to be backed by a US foundation, which is a pretty good structure. Imo, the real risk to Signal will come from partisan and intelligence linked agitators from academia taking over its board and stacking the project with people who will add back doors, or acquiesce to state meddling. The more formal and complex the organization becomes the more likely it will be infiltrated and subverted. It's worth having a 5-10 year horizon for planning privacy tech - and organizing to make the arms race in it less necessary by reining in the agencies who threaten it. I'm optimistic about the bluesky protocol, and what twitter may become, but without mitigating the official powers of privacy's antagonists, it's just a toy distraction. If you aren't using privacy tools to form networks and organize to preserve privacy, the tools only enable timidity. This is why I was suggesting in another thread that Signal should preemptively pull out of the UK in response to their crypto legislation, as hiding from these people is just a substitute for action.

4 ms·

If they sell anything at all, it exposes them to the local regulations of wherever they are taking money, and then the survival of the org and technology become

by motohagiography 3y ago

mcpackieh 3y ago
Signal Foundation is incorporated in America, so they're already exposed to American regulations. They could sell things (tshirts or exclusive client features or something) in America without exposing themselves more than they already are.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  I thought about merch and things like that, but really, this is an open source project that a lot of people depend on, and it just happens to be backed by a US foundation, which is a pretty good structure. Imo, the real risk to Signal will come from partisan and intelligence linked agitators from academia taking over its board and stacking the project with people who will add back doors, or acquiesce to state meddling. The more formal and complex the organization becomes the more likely it will be infiltrated and subverted. It's worth having a 5-10 year horizon for planning privacy tech - and organizing to make the arms race in it less necessary by reining in the agencies who threaten it. I'm optimistic about the bluesky protocol, and what twitter may become, but without mitigating the official powers of privacy's antagonists, it's just a toy distraction. If you aren't using privacy tools to form networks and organize to preserve privacy, the tools only enable timidity. This is why I was suggesting in another thread that Signal should preemptively pull out of the UK in response to their crypto legislation, as hiding from these people is just a substitute for action.