Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#711

Post by davidhyde »

contact9879 wrote: post #374
davidhyde wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about they pull their socks up and use peer to peer technology instead? Messages are asynchronous so they need to be temporarily stored but routing real-time audio and video is a technology problem that they have chosen the expensive way to solve.

They are peer-to-peer by default between people in their contacts list. That is for when calling someone that isn't in your contacts list or for people that have enabled the relay all calls option.

Thanks, very interesting. IMO, that is an insane amount of money to pay for a non-default feature of a free product.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#712

Post by water-data-dude »

charles_f wrote: post #279

You have to appreciate the complete transparency, gently nudging towards giving without ever begging for it. Refreshing compared to the alternative that Wikipedia is showing, with the tantrum-like emails we receive from their CEO like "LAST REMINDER" or "We've had enough" ; which they ironically send to people who gave.

I donated to the Southern Poverty Law Center a few years ago. A physical address was a required field on the donation form. I have never stopped regretting it, because GODDAMN! They started hammering me with physical mail asking for more money immediately and have not stopped.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#713

Post by mhh__ »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #461
mhh__ wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that including staff + trying to do new stuff or just the servers.

Why should Wikipedia do new stuff? Or rather, why is it okay for Wikipedia to lie to people to get funding for their new pet projects?

I see mentioned something like making a new editor UI. This is quite important for the longevity of Wikipedia.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#714

Post by smarnach »

activescott wrote: post #673

I almost skipped reading into this article because I love Signal and it's mission (and their rare commitment to stick to it) and would have known it's good. Yet, the details on expenses and infrastructure was a good read. $1.3M/yr for temporary storage! $6M for verification codes during sign-up!? Toll fraud!? GOOG & FB data center spend, data breaches from GOOG, MSFT, et. al 50 full-time employees vs 3K or 4K for sim…

The link about the Google "data breach" appears to be about some tax companies being sued for using Google Analytics tracking pixels. Calling this a data breach may be a bit of a stretch.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#715

Post by crossroadsguy »

Aissen wrote: post #97

The cloud tax is crazy (especially bandwidth). Pretty sure Signal has reached the scale where they would be cheaper by building their infra, maybe starting with the most expensive (storage + bandwidth), and then doing others. SMS is (unfortunately) core to the product, so I'm not certain how they could make it cheaper, while retaining the same properties (user+pass registration would be a nightmare for spam and chang…

Is it not that they’re buying something resistance as well by buying from large infra providers if big adversaries like state actors start pushing hard?

I also think SMS and phone numbers are core, but they must provide a way to communicate without use of phone numbers being kept completely separate from phone numbers even when registration is needed using phone numbers.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#717

Post by wkat4242 »

rglullis wrote: post #373
Canada wrote: post #88

Seriously consider setting up a recurring donation if you prefer Signal. They have delivered consistently over the years. I set the $20/month back when they introduced the option. I'm curious what the breakdown of donations is. I only have 1 contact with a $10/month and 1 with a $5/month badge. Of course there could be others not displaying the badge. Signal really needs 500,000 people giving $20/month and plus the r…

I fail to understand the point of supporting an organization that is completely against self-sovereignty like Signal is. Why would I want to pay someone to develop something that traps me into their platform and does not offer a way out?

Yeah this is the one thing I have against signal and why I always advise against it. Their stance against third party clients and federation.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#718

Post by MrDrMcCoy »

water-data-dude wrote: post #712
charles_f wrote: post #279

You have to appreciate the complete transparency, gently nudging towards giving without ever begging for it. Refreshing compared to the alternative that Wikipedia is showing, with the tantrum-like emails we receive from their CEO like "LAST REMINDER" or "We've had enough" ; which they ironically send to people who gave.

I donated to the Southern Poverty Law Center a few years ago. A physical address was a required field on the donation form. I have never stopped regretting it, because GODDAMN! They started hammering me with physical mail asking for more money immediately and have not stopped.

Just curious why you used an address that's associated with you. Choosing the address of a place like a park, which is a real address that has no mailbox or direct association with you, ought to be the default if you don't want to be spammed to hell and back.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#720

Post by saagarjha »

bravoetch wrote: post #705
rglullis wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 50 million using them all lose because they are locked into a monopolistic platform.

Nobody is locked into Signal. It's free to use, and free to leave.

That’s not how platform lock-in works.
Post reply on HN