Signal – An Ethical Replacement for WhatsApp

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Regional adoption & network effects

  • Multiple commenters say Signal is far from a drop‑in WhatsApp replacement because of network effects.
  • In Germany, UK, Turkey, South Africa and much of Europe, WhatsApp is described as mandatory for schools, clubs, work groups, and tradespeople; attempts to move such groups to Signal usually fail.
  • Some report subcultures where Signal is common (certain companies, clubs, activist/antifascist circles, parts of Canada), but most “normal” users still default to WhatsApp.
  • Several people note they effectively must run both Signal and WhatsApp; a few refuse WhatsApp entirely and accept losing or weakening some relationships.

Phone-number requirement & centralization

  • Strong criticism that Signal accounts require a phone number and are “phone‑first”; usernames hide numbers from contacts but don’t remove the phone dependency.
  • Centralized, single‑operator servers are seen as an ethical and strategic risk vs federated systems like Matrix or XMPP and email‑based DeltaChat.
  • Others argue that, compared to WhatsApp (also phone‑based and centralized), Signal is still a meaningful improvement in privacy.

Usability, features, and backups

  • Complaints: flaky multi‑device sync, forced re‑registration, one broken account stuck mid‑flow, missing cross‑platform migration (iOS↔Android), no exportable/plain-text backups (especially on iOS), and only limited history sync to new devices.
  • Feature gaps vs WhatsApp: photo timestamp handling, automatic photo backup to system albums/cloud, richer group tools (polls, live location, transcription), and weaker video‑call quality for some iOS–Android calls.
  • Others say multi‑device works fine for them and see limitations as deliberate privacy tradeoffs.

Backups vs ephemerality

  • One camp wants long‑term, portable chat archives, treating messengers as life diaries and photo albums; lack of robust export/backup is a deal‑breaker.
  • Another camp argues constant archiving is socially and politically dangerous and that short‑lived, harder‑to‑back‑up chats are a feature; they emphasize user over‑attachment to permanent logs.
  • Both sides insist the choice should ultimately lie with the user, not a “benevolent dictator.”

Alternatives discussed

  • Matrix is praised for federation and multi‑device E2EE but criticized for complexity, past key‑management bugs, and notification issues.
  • XMPP+OMEMO and DeltaChat (email‑backed) are cited as more open but have server/admin friction, throttling, and UX gaps.
  • SimpleX and Session are noted for numberless accounts but lack multi‑device, have delivery limits, or face cryptographic critiques.
  • Telegram is seen by some as “ethical enough” due to open clients, but others point to serious security/FSB concerns.

Ethics, privacy, and funding

  • Debate over whether Signal’s centralized, closed‑service model can be “ethical,” versus “moderate free software” or fully federated approaches.
  • Signal’s funding (donations, large founding gift, MobileCoin episode) and old privacy policy plus use of Google Captcha/third‑party pixels raise trust questions for some.
  • Others view criticisms as nitpicking relative to Meta’s tracking and see Signal as a pragmatic, significantly better option even if imperfect.