No, that is an important distinction. People have different threat models. For most people, privacy without anonymity may suffice (i.e. I don’t mind that you know it’s me, I just don’t want you to see what I’m sending). For others (i.e. journalists, whistleblowers, more privacy-centric individuals), anonymity may be equally important.
Whoever controls the number. This is fine for 90% of people who hold on to their number, especially since no data is leaked unless you are sent messages after changing your number. But that’s the same for SMS, so it’s not a downgrade from that.
dont you know who u wana talk with?
Yes, but most aren’t on signal yet. When they do join, it’s nice for them to know you’re on it too so your communication can default to that.
nitpicking
No, that is an important distinction. People have different threat models. For most people, privacy without anonymity may suffice (i.e. I don’t mind that you know it’s me, I just don’t want you to see what I’m sending). For others (i.e. journalists, whistleblowers, more privacy-centric individuals), anonymity may be equally important.
Exactly. And requiring a phone number enables convenience features like:
Once you have an account, you can disable the phone number and use Hawks usernames instead (can be changed at will) of disable discovery entirely.
It’s a pretty reasonable limitation IMO.
“Account recovery”, yeah but by whom?
“Find contacts”, dont you know who u wana talk with?
“be found by other people” ???
Whoever controls the number. This is fine for 90% of people who hold on to their number, especially since no data is leaked unless you are sent messages after changing your number. But that’s the same for SMS, so it’s not a downgrade from that.
Yes, but most aren’t on signal yet. When they do join, it’s nice for them to know you’re on it too so your communication can default to that.
You can disable discovery (I do).