5 ms·
Signal can be better, IMHO, by separating from phone number requirements. In other words, let users have secure random ids, rather than forcing each user to han
by jph 3y ago
Signal can be better, IMHO, by separating from phone number requirements. In other words, let users have secure random ids, rather than forcing each user to hand over their phone number for phone company verification.
It turns out the budget shows the phone number registration problem: the costs to deal with phone number verification seem to be $6MM, which seems to be 10% of the entire budget.
If Signal staff are reading this, I'd gladly pay $100/year for a phone-free solution for all users.
- minedwiz 3y agoYou're in luck: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/9/23953603/signal-username-feature-test-phone-numbers-privacy-security-pre-beta-2024-launch https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/9/23953603/signal-username-...
- SahAssar 3y agoThey will still require a phone number, it's just a alias.
- crossroadsguy 3y agoI just hope they don’t expose phone numbers if a conversation was started on usernames and one or both parties have phone numbers saved. I hope it is not this bad - something Telegram does. Also preferably clearing differentiating username and phone number messages.
- zitterbewegung 3y agoFocusing on app features is one thing but the bigger picture is that Signal is at risk of not existing without capital… (just donated $20 today and I wish I could buy stickers off of them).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- foundart 3y agoHow would it be better? Is there anything beyond not having to provide a phone number? How would it be worse?
- zamalek 3y agoThe phone number requirement is why WhatsApp won the space over in the first place. There were loads of username+password-based services before it, but none reached the market it did. Why? An incredibly wide user funnel, singing up is frictionless. You might understand that it's a bad idea, but that makes you an outlier.
- aquova 3y agoI don't really buy this argument. Is signing up with a phone number really that much easier for the average user than using a username/email account? Billions of people seemed to have no problems making a Facebook or Google account.
- Retric 3y agoIt’s the building a social network part that’s frictionless not creating user name process that’s frictionless.
- aquova 3y agoThe lack of a social network is why I settled on Signal. Before using Signal I tried Telegram, which requires a phone number and if they recognize your number in any of their user's contact list (which many people seem happy to allow access to), they'll send them a notification telling them their contact has joined. I got a nasty message within 10 minutes of making an account from a woman accusing me of pretending to be her deceased father. I had inherited his phone number a decade prior, and it told her I had made an account. I was so shocked they not only allowed, but encouraged such behavior that I deleted it promptly and swore I'd never use it again.
- brewdad 3y agoSignal does the same thing. Or maybe it used to but they changed it. I have a bunch of notifications of "so and so is on Signal" from when I joined years ago. Can't say I've ever gotten any psycho responses from it though.
- charcircuit 3y agoPhone verification does have value in adopting the network effects of phone numbers and integrity by making it harder to mass create accounts.
- smt88 3y agoRight, it's a way to create a cost barrier without anyone giving Signal a credit card directly.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoIt would have very particular ethical trade-offs, but they could just make signing up without a phone number a paid option. That has the advantage of actually turning a cost center into a profit center, at the distinct disadvantage of creating a moral hazard by the exact same virtue.
- cappax 3y agoThat exists, and is called Threema
- cl3misch 3y agoA bit handwavy, but allowing sign-up without a phone number could massively increase bot/spam traffic and ultimately increase hosting costs for Signal.
- oconnore 3y agoThe deal could just be: no phone number, but you have to pay $x/year (I guess this doesn't work with 501c3?)
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoJust charge $10 to create an account without a phone number and accept Bitcoin. Most people can avoid the $10 by providing a phone number, privacy-conscious people only have to pay $10, it generates revenue, and the $10 puts the spammers out of business because they don't pay $10 once, they pay $10 every time they get banned, which happens multiple times a day. You could even automate the bans by banning anyone who gets blocked by more than two people they sent messages to, which anybody can avoid by not sending messages to people who would block them, and if it happens to someone innocent, it's still only another $10 to reactivate your account.
- jtriangle 3y agoSession.app solved this problem well
- collaborative 3y agoTypical HN comment saying I will pay $ for xyz feature (which everyone, including the poster, knows to be BS)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- brewdad 3y agoI don't understand the concern. Signal has never been about anonymity. If you need to be anonymous, use a different tool. I like the fact that a phone number provides an additional verification that the person I am chatting with is who they say they are. As far as risk associated with having your phone number leaked to bad actors, that ship sailed years ago. I guarantee your number has been leaked a thousand other ways starting with by your phone provider.