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

I'm no longer involved at Signal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#31

Post by theossuary »

htk wrote: post #30
vlod wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's this tweet: https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1780929268949614848 From the tweet: EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher says that she abandoned a "free and open" internet as the mission of Wikipedia, because those principles recapitulated a "white male Westernized construct" and "did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be." There is a video of her speaking, which I find hard to trans…

Thank you for the link. Now I have enough to form an opinion about her.

Totally. She seems really thoughtful and aware of how absolute freedom (anarchy) just leads to a situation where implicit power structures are created by those who get there first. Hope she and others keep doing good work to ensure that the site lives up to its goal, to catalog all knowledge, not just the knowledge that's easy to catalog.

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#33

Post by slim »

huslage wrote: post #17
nocobot wrote: post #3

can someone explain why dhh has such strong feelings about katherine maher?

DHH only has strong feelings. Katherine Maher is a great CEO and leader and has been taken out of context in order to isolate her and make her unsupportable by people who claim to not like cancel culture. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[flagged]

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#34

Post by rand846633 »

thinkingemote wrote: post #12
nocobot wrote: post #3

can someone explain why dhh has such strong feelings about katherine maher?

not sure. I searched comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal... Most recent are a reasonably mundane culture wars stuff but (more interesting to HN) it seems earlier Signal related ones appear to suggesting a degree of alignment with the USA government. The words "spook" and "compromised" are used in different comments. Edits. From the Signal page: "She is an appointed member of the U.S…

Can anyone explain what the deal is with that Us department of state foreign affairs policy board?

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#35

Post by ignoramous »

0xy wrote: post #29
ignoramous wrote: post #6

DHH's "I trust Meta over Signal because a board member at Signal is woke" is utter content-farming clickbaity dishonest discourse for someone of his skill and intelligence (given the guarantees inherent in the Signal protocol and its opensource nature) and his previously stated stance against cancel culture [0]. This quest for influence seems to break people's brains in weird ways. [0] https://twitter.com/dhh/status/…

Her work history is indeed extremely concerning, but you're probably being downvoted because you invented a fake quote. Double quotes means a literal quote, he never said that. You invented it.

> you invented a fake quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase#Analysis

> double quotes means a literal quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation#Quotative_verbs

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#36

Post by lolc »

0xy wrote: post #29
ignoramous wrote: post #6

DHH's "I trust Meta over Signal because a board member at Signal is woke" is utter content-farming clickbaity dishonest discourse for someone of his skill and intelligence (given the guarantees inherent in the Signal protocol and its opensource nature) and his previously stated stance against cancel culture [0]. This quest for influence seems to break people's brains in weird ways. [0] https://twitter.com/dhh/status/…

Her work history is indeed extremely concerning, but you're probably being downvoted because you invented a fake quote. Double quotes means a literal quote, he never said that. You invented it.

I for one read it as paraphrasing and not a literal quote.

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#37

Post by thegrim33 »

huslage wrote: post #17
nocobot wrote: post #3

can someone explain why dhh has such strong feelings about katherine maher?

DHH only has strong feelings. Katherine Maher is a great CEO and leader and has been taken out of context in order to isolate her and make her unsupportable by people who claim to not like cancel culture. The whole thing is ridiculous.

You're the second person in this small thread to make a quip about "people claiming to not like cancel culture". Smells pretty fishy to me. Also the whole "she's a great CEO and leader" bit, what are the odds that you have personal experience to where you can make this claim? Even if you did, you could at least provide reasoning for why you think that. Anyways, all put together, I suspect a non-genuine person (or bot/LLM) posted this.

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#38

Post by captn3m0 »

motohagiography wrote: post #16

Judging by Mahar's TED talk about the diminished value of truth vs. alignment circulating on twitter, it looks like the Signal Foundation has finally fallen under the influence of the nihilists as well. FOSS doesn't need non-profit orgs, and people in tech aren't equipped to secure them from the people trained to take them over.

Being a non-profit is a huge advantage to Signal as they are not beholden to profits or shareholders. A messaging app that is used by millions worldwide, is a very juicy target for profit making via advertising otherwise. Meredith (Signal president) equates it to a a rampart against tech surveillance gobbling up Signal

> signal is an 501c3 nonprofit and that's a sort of you know an incorporation of you know in the US where you you agree not to take you know profits you get Revenue you can get Revenue but you're you not for profit and you have kind of a charitable aim and that requires that you do certain transparency protocols so there's sort of forms we file that show our finances that also means that we don't take sort of investment in the classic venture capitalist sense and that we cannot be acquire we could be acquired but you know the executives and the the board would not get a payout so if we sold signal for billions of dollars to say you know Palantir here or something evil like that um we would have to reinvest that money in charitable causes um now why is our incorporation structure important well it's actually one of the key barriers or key protections I would say like a rampart that allows us to keep fully focused on our mission of providing you know meaningful private Communications and in Tech that is you know particularly important because the barrier we're protecting against is the fact that the business model in Tech is monetizing surveillance so if we had investors if we had you know you know limited partners breathing down our neck if we had you know shareholders who were sort of hassling that one old guy on our board about you know increasing revenues or growth or this doesn't look too good the Privacy thing that seems a little dated we're not getting the kind of growth we need um we would be pushed to compromise our privacy Focus because the money lies in surveillance

There’s older blog posts from Signal explaining the same, but I feel the current Signal team is very well equipped to avoid hostile takeovers.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HIhLQrldq0s

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#39

Post by motohagiography »

captn3m0 wrote: post #38
motohagiography wrote: post #16

Judging by Mahar's TED talk about the diminished value of truth vs. alignment circulating on twitter, it looks like the Signal Foundation has finally fallen under the influence of the nihilists as well. FOSS doesn't need non-profit orgs, and people in tech aren't equipped to secure them from the people trained to take them over.

Being a non-profit is a huge advantage to Signal as they are not beholden to profits or shareholders. A messaging app that is used by millions worldwide, is a very juicy target for profit making via advertising otherwise. Meredith (Signal president) equates it to a a rampart against tech surveillance gobbling up Signal > signal is an 501c3 nonprofit and that's a sort of you know an incorporation of you know in the US…

I have tremendous respect for Whittaker. The alarming change is that the founder (Moxie) is no longer on the board, and one of the board members is someone publicly opposed to the freedom signal provides, who is also member of organizations who advocate against what signal provides, and appears to be a former employee at agencies with an interest in mass surveillance. Even Peter Theil would be a more reliable and trustworthy board member than Maher after what's come out about her views.

The other problem is Signal is now in a tacit monopoly position because neither the Apple or Google app stores will allow an app that does not do content moderation, and there is zero chance of them being challenged on that by the current US admin. I'm not sure what the current status is, but Element/Matrix was quietly cut out of the mobile market through that coordination. Judging by the stakes and the players, to me there's something very, very sinister about Marlinspike's exit as well.

Imo, the canaries for some very serious political problems are dropping like flies, and one of their tools is stacking boards of software projects with assets from compromised institutions.

Re: I'm no longer involved at Signal

#40

Post by dredmorbius »

motohagiography wrote: post #16

Judging by Mahar's TED talk about the diminished value of truth vs. alignment circulating on twitter, it looks like the Signal Foundation has finally fallen under the influence of the nihilists as well. FOSS doesn't need non-profit orgs, and people in tech aren't equipped to secure them from the people trained to take them over.

This video?

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=r2gsj0EEE3I>

Post reply on HN