you should still slowly push for more ppl in family to use signal. In moldova as example most ppl used viber, but moved gradually to telegram and whatsapp.
I've convinced my family/friends to use telegram in the past, but I'll slowly help them use Signal more. Changes rarely happen fast
Is there functionality whatsapp provides (even if it’s really unrelated to software features, just by happenstance due to its widespread usage) that signal doesn’t currently provide for? If so, it’s a losing battle. No one would go backwards in functionality unless the ads got egregious.
What you consider important may not be what others consider important. Seems like you know of other features that others find important you’re just not wanting to mention those because it undermines your point.
Non-profit and actually quite economically efficient per user.
Once WhatsApp was bought by Meta the writing was on the wall. I moved out of it immediately and I'm surprised people are caught off-guard by this news.
I suppose there's little guarantee Signal won't be sold, but an ultra popular app with no profit, owned by a single bloke (WhatsApp) was the last thing I expected to be a sustainable platform for my communications. Same reason I've never looked at Telegram.
Signal is open source, for one, so if Signal started pushing for ads, then someone could fork it into a new service.
In my opinion, the goal is not to find "the perfect monopoly". The goal is to be versatile. Right now, Signal is better than WhatsApp (be it just because it does not belong to Meta), and using Signal is absolutely trivial (it can even be used in parallel to WhatsApp).
I use Signal today, if in 2 years Signal goes into surveillance capitalism and ads, well I'll move to the next one. And then the next one. It's not like it requires a PhD to use a clone of a messaging app.
