[coppsilgold]

> Signal is demonstrably anti-privacy by design.

> You can reasonably disdain still having to expose a phone number to Signal, but calling it "anti-privacy by design" elides the origins of that design.

They introduced usernames without removing the requirement for phone numbers.

I rest my case.

[hnarn]

Not a very good case made since you obviously didn’t read the parent discussion.

[coppsilgold]

The parent attempted to excuse them by pointing out that the initial design was based on phone numbers. Putting aside the fact that initial design is irrelevant to present design criticism, they went out of their way to design usernames yet deliberately disallow signup without phone numbers.

> Not a very good case made since you obviously didn’t read the parent discussion.

This isn't an argument, do you have anything to back up your assertion?

[illiac786]

You’re blatantly trolling, it’s boring man. What do you call SMS if signal is “anti-privacy by design”?

[delichon]

Public broadcasting.

[illiac786]

I don’t understand, you know what I will ask next.

And broadcasting on FM radio is then what?

You’re just redefining words, there’s no need for this. We agree it would be better from a privacy point of view if Signal did not require a phone number but you’re nit picking: it’s a one time thing, and you can take a public phone that no one can associate with you for this. And then never need it again if you have proper backups.