Signal is a centralized app, run by a company. If they are offered enough money or legal threat they will sell out or close.
I am sure people will make an argument that its FOSS and people will just fork it if it goes bad, but a new fork will have 0 users and Signal will still have all of your old contacts. Why not make a switch now? Before it is even more popular and you have more reasons to stay? Why fork it if there are already decentralized apps that use same encryption, like XMPP apps?
Sure you can find flaws in every app, including XMPP implementations, but if we will have to write code for a new Signal fork, why not just fix whatever is that bugs you in XMPP clients?
If you want to use Matrix, that is fine as well, we can always bridge the two open protocols. But you cant bridge Signal if their company doesn’t allow it.
I get your point that having anything related to privacy or security under the control of one organization is not ideal. However, risk will always exist and trusting Signal, at this point, seems like a good risk to take. Particularly since there are no practical alternatives right now.
Also, not all organizations are bad or will turn bad eventually. We all have to trust a lot of people for all kinds of purposes. Civilization is built on it. They key is making good decisions about who those people will be.
I disagree, both about alternatives and about trust. I outlined XMPP (and even matrix) as alternatives in my post. If only popularity is an issue with these alternatives than we have to work on that, to make it popular, that is what this post is for. Just like Lemmy had few users once, XMPP and matrix are not as big as Signal. But their design is better and their use should be encouraged. I don’t think that trusting a single entity, such as Signal is something we have to do. Trust should be only depended on if there is no way to build a system without or less of it. It is better to fight for it now, since Signal use can eventually grow and make it harder to switch. We can debate over likeliness of this corporation being good forever, even when it’s current members are replaced (due to old age if nothing else), but I think it is easier to debate over their capability to be good if they are under pressure of US security agencies. Even if they are willing to risk their freedom (and their lives) for their users, they can’t stop the government of shutting them down. The state has killed people for far less over the years.