Binturong

This would have a lot more punch if they didn't use such pathetic delivery, and it would get more eyes, and generate more trust in the paper too because people already know the actual facts here, nobody needs the injection of deniability. If someone threatens to sue because you implied they don't care about americans, you say "bet, show me where you are demonstrating care and I'll recind my claim". But no, we can't simply say "because he doesn't care" because of corporate cowardice.

You betcha!

What an absurd assertion, it absolutely has something to do with him and the precedents set by his complete disregard for if not distainful and explicit abuse of the standards you seem to want to apply selectively. You're not wrong that those have been the standards for a century, and now they have changed because he has set the new standard with his behaviour, society will have to adjust accordingly. Not unlike his party breaking procedural precedents by selectively adhereing to them as is advantageous to stack a supreme court that would set the stage for tRump's authoritarian power grab. Choosing to cherry pick and talk like these things exist in a vacuum only exasperates the demolition of both legal and social norms and standards, and cements the new ones. It even conveniently ignores his prolific use of frivolous SLAPP suits to silence valid legal action against him, or coerce favourable actions and manipulate behaviour of private companies he has grievances with (most of which are dropped or settled when attention dies down) quite directly corrupting the administration of justice. Your prescription translates to just let it happen, if you admit it or not.

Ethical standards for thee but not for me, said the administration. tRump himself personally slanders and libels private citizens regularly, and pretty well anybody he doesn't like without hesitation or account. At a certain point the standards are being weaponized, just like their politics has done with civility. I think if they took a principaled stand and got sued, they could win, and I do support that actually. Will that happen? No.

Well shit maybe they shouldn't have done it then, if they're so upset about being called out.

I understand your defense there, but It's pretty naive to assert that 'free' is a smart long term plan for security, especially entrusting that security to a privately run entity. History has taught most of us that a 'free' service makes the users the product, in this context it's through the monetization of their information, and signal will be far from the first messaging app to fall from grace. It's reliably predictable these days that platforms will experience leaks and breaches over an increasingly short life span, or simply betray trust when a free platform no longer aligns with profit margins. Maybe signal is the gold standard as you say, but assuming that it always will be is burying your head in the sand in the face of precedent. My stance is that it's worth the cost of investing in something that can be managed and monitored through more accountable and controlled means, somethign that has more reliable long term value due to less external pressure to generate a profit with the one resource it has, user data.

I'm sure one could say it's not better to have the government managing that data on every scale, even though they already have access to critical information directly via service distribution and law enforcement, or externally by purchasing from data vendors. I'd argue that they have less incentive to monetize it or weaponize it against users without a profit motive, beside which if you think your data is safe in the pockets of private interest, and that they aren't sharing your information constantly to exploit you, I have a digital bridge to sell you. In short, why is Signal the 'chosen' brand that can and will never do wrong? Why wait for that eventuality to do the thing we can do right now to avoid the risk? This context is arguably a national security issue, but even if this were exclusively a civilian product, I think the argument stands and is less of a bad idea than you claim.

I also support the development of public options for social media platforms, not only to reduce existing and novel harms inflicted on a daily basis by companies like Facebook, but to destabilize the oligopolies tech companies have been staking out to leverage against regulation for over a decade now. At some point that fight is coming, unless we're just meant to accept things like AI generated CSAM runnign rampant in the digital space from criminal neglect. We can't keep falling for this same business model.

Edit: Having investigated more of the structure of the ownership of Signal, I feel somewhat more hopeful about it as it currently operates. I'm aware of my cynicism in engaging with it, just trust that it's informed by a long and consistent history of failure and exploitation from digital properties and isn't simply imagined. I still forsee Signal being at increasing risk of sabotage and acquisition by private interests like Meta or Microsoft to eliminate it for being too good of a competitor, but I owe it a chance to resist those forces and continue it's stated mission. I do still believe that eventually this and other digital infratrusctures are going to require public development if they're not going to be natoialized or operated as utilities to prevent monopolization, so forgive me for attempting to take a long view here, but I do agree with your support of Signal in this case.

Damn, if only there were some way to.. I don't know.. Make their fucking own app! Is this really not something people have considered?

Oh well, one app gets replaced with another, life goes on. Bye.

Ooops more treason! Surprise!!

Well they did say there was an epidemic of drugs coming over the border, we can do our part to stop that.

Our government should look to Mexico and follow their lead and just produce its own vehicles instead of infinitely deferring to private and foreign interests and partnerships that inevitably lead to huge losses for the Canadian taxpayers. Why hand all that production and industriousness off to a foreign interest of any sort? Tax dollars and canadian materials could support the production and secure lives for Canadian workers, and all their downstream wage spending, and profits from vehicles stay in the country instead of going to some stock buybacks for a company that could actually jsut fuck off any old day they choose as we've been seeing as a result of US tarrifs.

Missed opportunity to make them both the same gross old man.