Does anyone know where this is at? I thought WhatsApp were being forced by the EU in 2024 to introduce this under the Digital Markets App? I’m googling, but am finding very little info.
It would be great if we could use Signal to communicate with WhatsApp groups. The sooner I can delete WhatsApp the better.
You must log in or # to comment.
Signal had SMS support and dropped it. I imagine any argument for Whatsapp interoperability would face a similar fate.
Removed by mod
Matrix being federated and interoperable from day 1 was pushing for this and there was a blog post on this:
So, Matrix (federated) and XMPP (federated) would also have “metadata leaks”. I imagine there would be metadata exchanged between federated servers and in addition the E2EE of XMPP and Matrix is not so good/modern as Signal’s. When Signal-Whatsapp interoperability is mentioned, all people is worried about metadata leaks but it seems that concern dissapears when federation of Matrix or XMPP is mentioned.
Apart from that and one very personal opinion, I always connected Matrix to IRC, I mean, it is used more for the groups functionality than for the person-to-person functionality. And IRC was never considered an Instant Messaging alternative. But this is a very personal feel.
So it looks like the problems are on the WhatsApp side. The EU should force them to get the finger out and come up with a proper solution.
I also am waiting for news on this. I think many users lack of an european view. In Europe Whatsapp is a monopoly for Instant Messaging, look at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005178/share-population-using-whatsapp-europe/. And you do not break a Monopoly with “remove whatsapp and use only signal”. I only have 1 contact in Signal, two years ago I had 5 contacts. If I remove Whatsapp, I lack of IM. Period.
Signal has E2EE encryption, Signal collects very few metadata. If they collect very few metadata, they have very few metadata to expose to Whatsapp. If Whatsapp forces them to provide more metadata, they could argue and even ask for arbitration with the European Comission.
But the lack of interest to ever consider the interoperalibity seems to me they are not interested in the european market. They do not want to grow in Europe to become the best privacy-respectful IM solution (with users).
Hopefully never. Just stop using whatsapp. Be the change.
When facebook bought whatsapp, I walked through the list of chats I had on whatsapp and asked them what other apps they already used. Most people already used something other than a facebook owned thing or were willing to start.
WhatsApp is ubiquitous in Ireland, if only it was as easy to get away from it. Everything from clubs, schools, kids sport is done via group chats on WhatsApp. Absolutely hate Meta as a company, WhatsApp is the only app I use of theirs and only because they bought it from under us. If we could get proper interoperability, we could use a non WhatsApp app, but it’s not looking good so far.
Sounds awful, sorry to hear that
WhatsApp and Signal will likely never integrate, unless Signal itself compromises on its actually effective security policies.
Signal’s security and privacy model is not compatible with WhatsApp, and if they made it compatible, that would break what makes Signal secure and private.
That would make most people that use Signal quit using it.
If you have friends or family that won’t switch to Signal, then they value convenience over privacy and security, regardless of whether or not they are informed enough or intelligent enough to understand this.
IMO, if you value privacy and security, and your friends/family are unwilling to take 5 minutes to install a different phone app to communicate with you, that is how little they value continuing to have a relationship/contact with you, you are not worth that extremely small amount of effort, you are worth less than this extremely minor inconvenience.
Other people may have different stances on this last bit, but that’s mine.
I would like to hear more specific details about the loss of privacy that would require the integration with whatsapp for signal users.
- E2EE would be broken?
- which specific metadata of signal users would be exposed (metadata that is not now required by signal)? less metadata of current whatsapp users would be required?
- integration could be a user option?
Because I see a lot of fear but few details that justify it.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/versus/whatsapp-vs-signal-4309419
Neither WhatsApp nor Signal are realistically vulnerable to EE2E being comprimised by a man in the middle style attack, they use the same standard.
But if your threat model only includes being worried about random or organized hackers, then you must not be worried about your own government, or governments it cooperates with.
In a nutshell, when you send a message or photo, metadata is also sent out. Metadata includes information about when the message was delivered, who it was sent to and more. Metadata is not protected by end-to-end encryption, meaning that while the content of your message is safe, a lot of information can still be gleaned from it.
Signal has developed a technology for protecting metadata called Sealed Sender. This allows for metadata to be hidden, giving you an added level of security and privacy. WhatsApp does know the IP address and technical information showing that the request comes from the WhatsApp app.
Law enforcement can fairly easily figure out your real identity if they have your metadata from enough messages.
Almost all modern, advanced surveillance is built around the analysis of metadata to establish patterns and narrow down the pool of suspects or persons of interest down to actual specific individuals.
WhatsApp stores your metadata.
Signal does not.
What exact kinds of metadata are we talking about?
Well we got the bare minimum basics, which are often enough on their own to narrow down to a person:
IP Address.
Send / Recieve Time of Message.
Rough Estimate of Message Length.
Either Rough or Fine GeoLocation Coordinates.
Then we’ve got everything else that’s connected to the 'Meta’verse:
Phone Number
Profile Name (Usually your Real Name)
Email
Anything you’ve posted on or linked to a Meta Account (Facebook, Instagram)
Or, potentially anything else!
WhatsApp’s privacy policy describes how personal data shared with Facebook “may include other information identified in the Privacy Policy….or obtained upon notice to you or based on your consent”.
Also, WhatsApp sometimes actually stores your actual messages:
WhatsApp does not store messages, but if a message cannot be delivered immediately, it is kept in an encrypted form on the servers for up to 30 days before it is delivered. If it is not delivered, it is then deleted. It does keep track of how often you use the WhatsApp app and your usage habits whilst in the app.
Signal also does not store its messages, and it will not try and link this phone number to an identity, meaning that it won’t have access to your location, email, or other private information.
Because WhatsApp, in some cases, stores your actual messages, that means they can be legally compelled to decrypt them and reveal them to law enforcement.
Signal does not store your actual messages, and thus cannot be legally compelled to provide something they do not possess.
Finally, Signal is a non profit, WhatsApp is a subsidiary of Meta:
WhatsApp is currently owned by Meta, formerly known as Facebook. Due to this integration and WhatsApp’s privacy policy, your information will be shared in order to help Meta better customise its user’s experiences.
Signal is instead owned by the Signal Technology Foundation, which is a registered non-profit that is run on donations from its users. Due to this, Signal does not need to share its user’s information with third-party apps and it’s unlikely that this will change in the future
MegaCorps have every incentive to make as much money as possible, which means selling and making available as much of your data as possible.
A non profit does not have this built in, contradictory incentive.
…
Even without the actual contents of data being revealed, lets throw in some examples of being an American and using WhatsApp where you are potentially fucked:
You live in a state that criminalizes abortion, or gender affirming care, and you plan and execute a plan of getting an abortion/receiving gender affirming care at a clinic, sending messages before, whilst in transit to, at, and returning from the clinic.
You plan, attend, and coordinate a pro palestinian or pro trans rights, or pro health care reform rally, which has some violent act occur, or perhaps even without that.
…
If Signal integrated with Meta, I mean WhatsApp, this would provide at least that bog standard metadata (which, again, is very often enough to profile and identify a person) and potentially actual msg content to WhatsApp from the Signal user, which would comprimise then Signal user’s security… which defeats the entire point of using Signal.
For this not to be the case, Meta would have to agree to switch over to Signal’s standards, which they will never do.
EDIT:
If Signal did integrate with Meta, and allow the user to msg a WhatsApp user, it would be leaking your IP every single time you do so, so basically it would have to put a warning on every msg you send that way, similar to Firefox warning you that the website you’re trying to visit has no HTTPS or expired security credentials.
There’s no point.
The classic tech company approach is embrace, extend, extinguish.
Lemmy and other fediverse people/communities recently learned this the hard way, trying to integrate with Meta and then oh whoops, looks like that’ll be a one way relationship.
EDIT 2:
Its basically this meme, just replace ‘minority social group’ with ‘privacy conscious users’ (which apparently just actually is a minority social group at this point):
So, we had people who loved to send unencrypted SMS messages with Signal. And now we have people who opposes to send encrypted E2EE messages because they could leak supposedly a lot of metadata such as “when the message was delivered, who it was sent to and more” and it would be the end of privacy in Signal.
We should not forget that this only happens if you send messages out of Signal. This would be optional for every user of Signal.
Interoperatibility is the CORE of Internet. Silos are contrary to the idea of Internet. This is an opportunity to interconnect systems, to boost innovation and to give the opportunity to signal and others to gain users, which is now almost impossible with the current monopoly of whatsapp in Europe.
I imagine all the extremist of privacy in Signal with a Proton email account. And I imagine them only sending/receiving emails from other Proton email accounts. Sending to SPAM or to the delete folder every other email because other emails do not achieve the privacy requirements of Proton. In fact, the only real good solution for privacy with Email is to delete the Email account.
If you don’t know how big a deal metadata is, you do not understand anything about online data security and privacy.
Sorry, real privacy is silo’d, just like the vast majority of online traffic is, the widely agreed upon base interoperability standards are not private or secure.
SMS is an insecure interoperable standard.
Meta is an insecure silo.
Stop pretending it is an interoperable standard, it isn’t, it’s just a popular, shitty silo.
Signal is a secure silo.
I’m all for upgrading the universal messaging standards to Signal’s, but that’ll never happen, because governments (EDIT: and databroker MegaCorps) don’t actually like real privacy.
If you wanna stay in a mainstream, dream for corporate data brokers and government surveillance silo, go ahead, nobody is stopping you.
If you wanna join the ‘we actually have privacy’ silo, well, it does things differently, and it’s on you to acclimate to those differences instead of destroying them and demanding assimilation and thus destruction of the very privacy that makes it distinct.
Please see my above post, I edited and expanded it with an illustrative comic as you were making your reply.
EDIT 2: Also Proton is cozying up to Trump, publically, guess you missed the memo on that.
It is easy, even if interoperability is enabled, do not send messages out of Signal. It would be your option. But other people with non military-grade privacy requirements could benefit of improved privacy when it sends messages to whatsapp users from signal app because signal app is foss and signal would enforce better security and privacy than whatsapp app. Signal would gain traction and it could reach more people willing to abandon Meta and corps.
… No, you don’t get it.
Every time a Signal user would send a message to WhatsApp, they’d be leaking metadata to WhatsApp, because WhatsApp would create and store metadata from the Signal message it recieves, which would make the Signal user insecure, less secure, because WhatsApp will sell that data to data brokers or provide it to the government if requested.
This represents a loss of privacy and security to Signal users, not an increase.
… Also, Signal is not actually 100% foss, it uses some closed source, Google provided components.
Molly FOSS is a fork of Signal that replaces these Google components with fully foss ones.
…
You keep acting like Signal has some need to expand its market share, and that the best way to get it to do so is by abandoning its core, primary feature, the reason people use it.
Signal will likely never do this, because they are interested in security and privacy, not comprimising security and privacy in hopes of gaining popularity and market share.
Again, see the comic I already linked.
You are demanding that two incompatible things be made compatible because one of them is better, but you fundamentally do not understand that making them compatible will make the better thing as bad as the worse thing.
You can fit the square peg into the round hole, but only if you shave down the square peg into a cylinder, at which point, you no longer have a square peg.
If you got your way and Signal could message WhatsApp, and then you started using Signal to just only talk to WhatsApp users, you might as well just be using WhatsApp to talk to WhatsApp users, it would be the same level of (in)security.
This would also make no sense for Signal to do because it would make their own software pointless, just an alternative gateway to WhatsApp, with less features than WhatsApp and less security than it had before.
…
If you wanna make a Signal fork that can interoperate with WhatsApp, go right ahead, no one is stopping you.
Set up a clone of the Signal repo, setup a WhatsApp business account, purchase access to WhatsApp’s API, host and pay for your own servers to manage the WhatsApp end of the system, and write your desired interoperability features into your Signal fork, then release it as an app for android, iOS, macOS, windows and linux.
Here’s an intro to the WhatsApp API:
Here’s the Signal repo:
Best of luck!
Best of luck also for your next fork. Please share with us your improvements in metadata privacy.
I’d rather my Signal not be federated sigh Facebook at all. I’d be fine downloading a secondary Signal-owned app just for Whatsapp contacts (that way I don’t have WhatsApp on my phone), but I do not want my standard Signal traffic routed through Facebook’s data-guzzling, privacy-eroding servers.
Why would your signal to signal data be even sent to WhatsApp? Only the signal to WhatsApp and WhatsApp to signal data would go through meta servers… If that’s not how it’s being designed, it’s a failed feature ofc.
Isn’t the whole point of E2E encryption that it doesn’t matter. And since signal has recently implemented sealed sender. Sending your communication to someone on a Facebook server might actually be more secure.
Federating would mean handing off chat metadata to Meta and other for-profit companies in the future.
I don’t see how anyone excited to use Signal would like that. It very much defeats the purpose of using Signal.
This is not federation, this is signal being able to send message to a WhatsApp server and WhatsApp being able to interpret it to send it to a WhatsApp user. WhatsApp wouldn’t know more than what it already knows when you inevitably need to use the app to reply to your grandma or whatever.
A big plus however is that you can convince friends and family to switch since they would be able to keep chatting with their family and friends, so the entry barrier lowers by a ton.
This is not federation and it is great.
Okay, hear me out, but I think it’s actually beneficial.
Your content itself is encrypted, e2e so u don’t need to worry about that.
The signal protocol has recently introduced sealed sender. sealed sender is completely useless if all communications are going through a centralised server, such as the signal server (You can deanonimise senders easily). If the traffic travels across multiple servers with sealed sender, then it is theoretically impossible to reveal who the sender is unless you have communications with that other server give u info on who the sender was. So if you trust signal not to be collecting your metadata, then you must also trust them, not to be giving your metadata to metadata.
The benefit would be the ability to chat with those refusing to move away from WhatsApp without having to use the Whats App. I get why they aren’t going for it, but I guess it could be handy.
So? Those of us who have switched to signal clearly don’t want our data going through meta. Just stop using WhatsApp.
I’ve even got old people using it.
I mean I love the passion and I love Signal too but I’m not going to stop messaging my family and friends over their decision to use WhatsApp. Can’t get everyone to switch.
And if they had interoperability towards WhatsApp and had their own stuff too those not using it wouldn’t have to have anything to do with WhatsApp
Fair enough. There are plenty of mostly distant relations of mine who I no longer hear from at all because I don’t use Facebook. So it goes.
I see what you’re saying, but it really undermines Signal’s purpose and their integrity.
Take Telegram for example, they used to have a secret chat option, where you could send a message with E2E encryption. Telegram would tout this secure feature, but it was somewhat hidden away and no one used it.
An even better example is Signal removing its ability to handle SMS because they thought it was confusing to people that some messages it sent were secure, and some weren’t. This WhatsApp integration would again muddy the waters and the average person wouldn’t care to look into or understand the difference.
At the end of the day we as people who care about security need to take on the burden of having multiple messengers for different purposes. The ones that want to join us on Signal can, but if we compromise Signal to meet them where they are, we compromise the simplicity of Signal and no one can say it’s secure and private without listing caveats.
I get why they aren’t going for it, even though it could be handy
Eff em.
Family, friends and most people in general I know use WhatsApp. It’s very very popular in some places.
I’m looking forward to the day when I confederate my own fucking messaging server. But I doubt that’ll ever come.
I think a lot of the fediverse should introduce Matrix as part of their deployment for private messages directly.
Or XMPP - it’s more accessible to host.
I’ve dealt with xmpp and matrix and I far prefer using matrix tbh. XML is shit in all cases except prompting llms.
I just had a better experience as a normie who doesn’t see these formats. All I see is that Matrix’s Synapse is too heavy to run on my cheap weak VPS, Conduit is not as feature-complete (most importantly - lacks old media and message deletion, which means the only way to free up my small disk space would be a reinstall), and encryption renders messages unreadable from time to time (OMEMO does not break like this).
Last I heard Signal wasn’t interested in federating with WhatsApp so that initiative basically died before it was born.
I wasn’t aware that it was only about Signal. Thought messengers in general must be able to communicate with each other.
If I understand this document correctly, it would mean that the entire connection somehow gets routed through Meta’s servers. I can fully understand the reluctance of other parties, including Signal, to do that, and I wonder how this is actually compliant with the DMA.
You don’t understand. This is not for you, the signal user, to speak with WhatsApp users. This is for you to convince them to swap to signal and keep talking to other WhatsApp users. The more people change, the less information will go through meta. Lowering the barrier to swap apps is great.
To send messages, the third-party providers have to construct message protobuf structures which are then encrypted using the Signal Protocol and then packaged into message stanzas in eXtensible Markup Language (XML).
Meta servers push messages to connected clients over a persistent connection. Third-party servers are responsible for hosting any media files their client applications send to Meta clients (such as image or video files). After receiving a media message, Meta clients will subsequently download the encrypted media from the third-party messaging servers using a Meta proxy service.
This is only for messages sent to WhatsApp, right now you are force to use their app to chat with WhatsApp users, which is worse than the proposal.
I think that’s only the case for people on a meta client. I would assume for people on a signal client get their requests proxied to meta via a signal server.
Signal declined, despite the EU bending over backwards and handing them the chance on a silver platter to become relevant.
IMO it’s a mistake, like getting rid of SMS support was (which is far less secure than WhatsApp yet Reddit/Lemmy seem to be angry about that but glad about lack of WhatsApp interoperability?? I guess it’s because Americans don’t really use WhatsApp so it’s not a big deal to them, whereas SMS is).
It would have been an amazing opportunity to help those that want to use Signal actually use it.
Yes, I’m aware Meta scrapes what metadata they can from messages, but if you make this clear in Signal when you talk to a WhatsApp user then I don’t see the issue, after all it’s what they did for SMS chats yet everybody loved that feature!
People trying Signal because it’s compatible with WhatsApp that everybody uses would lead to more Signal-to-Signal chats, and that’s a good thing.
The Signal foundation seems to care more about being ideologically pure for its 10 users than they do about making a small compromise that leads to far more users and far more Signal-to-Signal chats. It seriously disappointed me, and I stopped my £10 monthly donation hearing that bad news. I was so invested in Signal because I thought it was a great app, but there’s no point of financially supporting the growth of an organisation that vehemently rejects growth, I was throwing my money away.
I went from having 10 contacts on Signal down to just one after the SMS purge. I want to use this app but it’s pointless. Nobody wants to use an app that nobody uses, and Signal doesn’t seem to want any users either.
Frankly, I don’t buy their excuse. If they were truly that ideologically pure about absolute privacy, they’d never have added SMS support in the first place! And they wouldn’t have tied accounts to phone numbers either!
I think the reason they ditched SMS was down to development costs. Maintaining that functionality, as well as building RCS support, is far more expensive than simply cutting the feature out and trying to salvage some “it’s about privacy!” PR. I think the same is true for WhatsApp integration.
E: I knew this would start getting heavily downvoted once the Americans started logging on. Please try to understand that WhatsApp is big in much of the world. Everybody uses it. My bank wouldn’t let me take out a mortgage without WhatsApp. That’s how ingrained it is. Being able to use Signal and still receive messages from people would go a long way in getting people to install the app.
People trying Signal because it’s compatible with WhatsApp that everybody uses would lead to more Signal-to-Signal chats, and that’s a good thing.
75% of my signal contacts would delete signal and just use whatsapp if interOp happened… I’ve already slowly lost 1 or 2 contacts a year because i’m the only one they know on signal and they either gave up or forgot to reinstall when they got a new phone
The 75% of your contacts you describe sound like they installed Signal only to talk to you or at most a handful of people, while most of their social circle is on WhatsApp. These people are trapped on WhatsApp exactly because there is no interoperability.
Ok, that’s your guess.
90% of my contacts did leave Signal because of the SMS removal. And that’s SMS, which nobody uses.
People being able to use Signal without being cut off from the world would be massive in terms of getting people to use signal. Which like I said, would mean more Signal-to-Signal chats, which would bring more and more people to signal once they see that it’s an actual worthwhile platform.
I’m simply sharing my own experience. It’s not a “shot in the dark”
There would likely be fewer signal users because a lot of normies only installed signal because one or two of their friends convinced them to. Once they figure out that interOp exists, why would they keep using signal (where only 2 or 3 of their paranoid weirdo friends hang out) when they could just use whatsapp to talk with their signal friends?
Ive had multiple people tell me that they only keep signal around because of me… While i’m flattered, it doesnt bode well for signal.
This a really easy issue to fix for signal.
Signal could enable it on a per-user basis. Why would your friends keep using signal? Because you would not enable it so they won’t be able to talk to you. However, they can now enable it and keep talking to everyone else, so they might decide to delete WhatsApp with in time.
There would be more people willing to try Signal because they would still be able to talk to people and not become a social outcast.
More people using signal would then mean more Signal-to-Signal chats.
More Signal-to-Signal chats is a good thing.
People trying Signal because it’s compatible with WhatsApp that everybody uses would lead to more Signal-to-Signal chats
would it, though? why would anyone move away from Whatsapp if they could talk to Signal users without switching apps?
Would they? Signal could make this a choice per user. As in, you as a signal user don’t enable it so they can’t msg you, but they can enable it from signal to talk to you and their social circle all at once.
would it, though
Yes? 100% it would?
A fair amount of people don’t want to use WhatsApp, but they have no real choice because it’s practically a requirement for living in modern society.
If you make it so they can still chat to people on WhatsApp, they can go to Signal without worrying about that.
why would anyone move away from Whatsapp if they could talk to Signal users without switching apps?
Why would anybody play games on Linux via proton if they could just stay on Windows? Because they don’t like Windows.
Like I said above, plenty of people don’t like Meta, they use WhatsApp because there’s no real choice. Offer them a choice, and more will take the plunge.
And why would anybody move to Signal if they can’t talk to anybody?
The massive drop in users after getting rid of SMS support shows that people are willing to use Signal if they can still talk to people, but aren’t willing to use it when they can’t.
why would anybody move to Signal if they can’t talk to anybody?
why would anybody move to Signal if it’s no different in terms of privacy anymore? That’d be the consequence of interoperability.
You’d have better privacy when talking Signal to Signal. Interoperability would be towards those using WhatsApp and then it’d be either using Signal to chat with them or being forced to use WhatsApp’s app.
I’m assuming they’d have two different ways to communicate instead of just switching it all to WhatsApp’s system.
Because more people would be on signal, which means more Signal-to-Signal chats.
As I explained in my post.
I doubt it would lead to more signal-to-signal chats. With interoperability, they would be handing off their data to Meta, at which point users will just keep using WhatsApp as most are today.
If getting away from Meta and other for-profit companies is no more, what will be the selling point of Signal?
How could it not lead to more Signal-to-Signal chats?
The biggest problem with signal is that nobody uses Signal. Everybody uses WhatsApp.
If you make it so people can switch to signal without it completely cutting you off from the world, then more people will use it, which will lead to more Signal-to-Signal chats, which will lead to signal becoming widespread enough that people shift from WhatsApp.
People that do use signal value privacy or just want to get away from predatory companies
Once interoperability breaks this, what’s going to be the reason for people to use it?
There’s a good chance Signal will have even less users than it does today if that happens, because the few users who care will leave.
Everybody uses WhatsApp.
and there needs to be a reason for people to switch; what’s that then?
There will be more privacy, because there will be more Signal-to-Signal chats.
Also, SMS support is vastly less secure, yet Signal users loved that, and there was backlash/mass exodus when they dropped support.
and there needs to be a reason for people to switch; what’s that then?
As I already stated: privacy. People want privacy, but they also want people to talk to.
If Signal can only speak to Signal, nobody will get Signal because then you can’t talk to anybody. And there’s no point of a chat app where you can’t talk to anybody.
Add interoperability and suddenly people are more willing to try Signal because you won’t be a social outcast with nobody to talk to anymore. Suddenly you have a few contacts that are on signal and find the app convenient to use. Then the users grow from there. Meaning more Signal-to-Signal chats.
I’ve started that 3 or 4 times now.
I also don’t appreciate how you appear to be acting like speaking with WhatsApp users is mandatory. It’d be an optional feature just like the (vastly less secure/private) SMS was. Even for those people, this change would be a major win, because they’d have more people to talk to as more people join the app.
As long as you have a way to know if it’s a Signal to whatsapp conversation, I don’t see the problem.
If you only want to talk to Signal users, you could just deactivate the interooerability option.
It’s incredible that everybody was fine with SMS in Signal behaving this way, which is vastly less secure.
I wasn’t. Like a WhatsApp integration, I think using SMS defeats the purpose of Signal. My phone can handle SMS just fine, I don’t need that feature. But when you take a feature away, you only hear about people who used and liked it to there’s a clear bias to think there was a huge backlash.
I haven’t seen numbers to support the alleged “mass exodus” that happened when they removed it.
You are very very much in the minority. The backlash was enormous and the user count plummeted.
There’s no way to argue that it defeated the purposes of Signal. Nobody forced you to use SMS.
Yeah I also found that decision to be really disappointing. Before you could just use Signal for all your messaging and it would smartly use its own protocol if you both had accounts. Now it’s relegated to dedicated Signal users, which yeah I’ve got like 4 contacts left.
Signal declined,
Signal’s management is similar thing that Google did to mozilla.
They are there to keep freedom enjoyers occupied and feeling like we are sticking to daddy and owner class but in reality is a psyop. As long as edge lord are busy jerking them selves off, it is working.
Current signal management is there to ensure that signal never goes mainstream.
Obviously still use them as that’s they the best current offering once balanced for ease of recruitment.
We need something better though and I am always on look out.
Matrix and SimpleX are on my radar but let’s what market decides.
it requires Whatsapp to open up interoperability with other services if they request that. Signal has already mentioned in the past that they wouldn’t be interested.
deleted by creator
I don’t know. I’m having a much better time getting friends to move to telegram than signal.
I prefer signal, but they all seem to prefer telegram as an alternative.
I’ve had a shockingly easy time getting my friends and family to move to signal.
There is literally only one person I have not gotten to move to it and that’s because she just has so many contacts who won’t leave Facebook.
