[DyslexicAtheist]

> It suggests that the people behind Signal may not be as trustworthy as they're made out to be.

trust only works in retrospect (it can't be extended into the future to a party simply because they make a promise)

all such relationships have an expiry date (since as the trusted party evolves or needs to reinvent itself to satisfy shareholders). what can prevent this are bullet-proof contracts (that's not how people make decisions though - they never read the fine-print, review it when it changes and instead work on gut-feeling and emotions).

putting your trust into a brand/product is always going to eventually hurt you. A product having reached the size of Signal will most certainly throw part of it's user-base to the curb if it thinks it's held back by their opinions/goals.

The disconnect is people thinking Signal owes them something (when everybody actually used it for free until now).

[noja]

> trust only works in retrospect

Nonsense. Trust provides a basis for present and future dealings.

[DyslexicAtheist]

please get in touch by email, I have a business proposal for you.

I highly recommend Robert Cialdini before making opinionated comments on trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...

[user-the-name]

No, because, and this is very crucial:

I don't trust you.

[DyslexicAtheist]

sounds like you did not understand that this was rhetorical?

[user-the-name]

I understood that perfectly, and I pointed out to you that your rhetorical argument is invalid.

[jeltz]

Not everybody. The people who donated to the project owes Moxie not using their money to get rich off a pump and dump scheme.