[bubblethink]

>So much for user freedom.

Users are free to host their signal servers if they choose. The usage of their network is their prerogative. It's not a federated protocol and they never promised or set out to support arbitrary clients on their network. At the moment, the world is really better served by signal than most other messaging solutions.

[ekianjo]

> At the moment, the world is really better served by signal than most other messaging solutions.

Matrix/Riot is superior in about every way to Signal, and they welcome third party clients without any restriction.

> What sort of weird FOSS zealotry is this where you want to use someone else's network resources without their consent

Well, are they in the business of building something open, or building yet another walled garden? Because this is precisely what they seem to be doing by creating such restrictions.

[bubblethink]

I edited that statement since it was unnecessarily aggressive. In any case, I can see their point. They never claimed to create a federated service and they cannot reasonably be expected to support/vouch for every arbitrary fork on their network. i.e., Vouching to the other party about the security of the communications, which is their main point.

>Well, are they in the business of building something open, or building yet another walled garden?

They are in the business of accessible secure communications for everyone. I think that's a reasonable goal with their reasonable tradeoffs. It's a free service with no money, no ads, and no obligations. Respecting their network usage policy is really just common courtesy.