|
|
|
|
|
|
by Vinnl
1886 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, I can imagine that especially if the team with full access to the back-end already has problems making everything work properly, they don't want to add additional developers with less hands-on involvement to the mix. (Even if those say the adhere to the same version.) Look, I'm not saying you have to agree with the reasoning or that you would've made the same trade-off in their stead, but at least personally I always prefer to understand how they came to a decision and recognise that, even when I don't agree and am affected by the consequences of it, they're not doing it to spite me. |
|
|
Maybe I'm wrong but my theory is that it started with "end-to-end encryption means that you don't have to trust us" and it seems that many among the Signal team and fans took that to mean "we can behave as shadily as we want and not communicate well since it doesn't really matter anyway".
But there's more to trust than end-to-end encryption. I also need to trust that the project will keep improving and that I'll still want to use it three years from now. The fact that Signal is not federated and they keep such a strong hold on the project makes it even worse, I really have all my eggs in moxie's basket.
I used to actively tell people to use Signal, now I say nothing and these days I find myself using Telegram more and more even though protocol-wise Signal is clearly the superior option.