I suggest evaluating the source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone#Reception Notice how the piece

I suggest evaluating the source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone#Reception Notice how the piece you linked ties together facts in a way that implies an otherwise unsupported narrative: Signal received funding from .gov (true), that funding expired after some period (true), Signal is currently struggling financially (true). Missing is information such as: How much of Signal’s funding came from .gov? (Not mentioned.) When did the funding end? (Asked but not answered.) Any indication of causal link between loss of .gov funding and current financial trouble? (None mentioned.) Yet the clear implication is that Signal was created as a CIA psyop, and was only ever successful due to sinister government connections. It’s a great story for someone who makes a living implying the CIA is behind everything. (Previous stories on his Substack: “Third 9/11 Hijacker May Have Been CIA Recruit,” “How CIA and NSA Created Google,” “RIP BuzzFeed News, Intelligence Agency Propaganda Conduit”) But that’s rather ad hominem of me. So don’t just believe me—analyze the details of the story for yourself, and form a conclusion.