[tivert]

> I think the remark is more about these sort of rhetorical tactics which permeate every topic. It is a fair remark.

It's not a fair remark though, all it did was twist what I said into a inflammatory derailment.

The point is there are a lot of (usually technical) people who are too focused one aspect, but are missing the bigger picture. If you follow them, you'll probably get a communication app that only those people can/will use, which has deal breakers for mass-market adoption. And once that happens, those people probably won't use it either, since they want to communicate outside their group.

[verticalscaler]

Both his and your comments come off as inflammatory derailment to me. That's how it reads, I'm not ascribing malintent. People didn't use to talk like this, I hope you reconsider.

"not just weird privacy geeks who never gave up on PGP." is simply not conducive towards making your point. You can make your (otherwise solid) point and even win the argument on merit without this sort of thing.

[actionfromafar]

I try to figure out another shorthand which communicates as effectively. "Privacy minded geeks with a deep understanding of E2E encryption"?

[garbanz0]

The main selling point of Signal is privacy. That's basically the only reason it exists - without it, why not just use WhatsApp, Messenger, Snapchat, etc?

What is the usability concern for no longer needing a phone number?