There are a few people in my social bubble that are not technical at all, but heard a few bad things about WhatsApp and that’s why they are using Signal. Nothing more, they do not know how it works, they do not know who provides it.
Seems to me one of the main things that got people to move away from Whatsapp en masse a few years ago was a rumour that they’d added a backdoor to it similar to the one Sweden is thinking of demanding. If an unfounded rumour did that much, the real thing might do substantial damage to Whatsapp as well if they were to go along with it. It probably wouldn’t completely demolish it, as it would for Signal — or at least its demise might take longer.
While that’s generally true, one of the main reasons why people choose apps like Signal is the privacy. People that aren’t aware and don’t care generally wouldn’t have switched to Signal in the first place.
I agree that it would destroy the reason many people use it, but they aren’t outlawing Signal specifically. What they are doing is arguably worse, but this isn’t an “anti-Signal” action.
The “if” to that “then” being that if they pass a law that would make Signal illegal in Sweden, then Signal will leave Sweden.
Illegal unless they install the backdoors. They could choose to do that instead of leaving Sweden, but they are choosing to leave Sweden.
If they did that, Signal would no longer exist at all. Nobody anywhere in the world would want to continue using it.
I think you wildly misunderstand the average person’s motivations and how they weigh decisions.
We’re talking about Signal, not FB Messenger. People use Signal because of the encryption, and they would leave.
I use Signal because my workplace decided to default to it.
The “average person” you have in mind who obviously does not care about cryptographic security also does not use Signal.
There are a few people in my social bubble that are not technical at all, but heard a few bad things about WhatsApp and that’s why they are using Signal. Nothing more, they do not know how it works, they do not know who provides it.
And now they’ll hear something bad about Signal and move on as they did with WhatsApp, as per your example.
Seems to me one of the main things that got people to move away from Whatsapp en masse a few years ago was a rumour that they’d added a backdoor to it similar to the one Sweden is thinking of demanding. If an unfounded rumour did that much, the real thing might do substantial damage to Whatsapp as well if they were to go along with it. It probably wouldn’t completely demolish it, as it would for Signal — or at least its demise might take longer.
thats not the target audience, thankfully.
The target audience is everybody with a Smartphone.
The majority of people in my signal contacts are there because someone (sometimes me) pushed them to use it instead of WhatsApp.
While that’s generally true, one of the main reasons why people choose apps like Signal is the privacy. People that aren’t aware and don’t care generally wouldn’t have switched to Signal in the first place.
deleted by creator
I agree that it would destroy the reason many people use it, but they aren’t outlawing Signal specifically. What they are doing is arguably worse, but this isn’t an “anti-Signal” action.
Well yeah, they are not attacking Signal the company, just their core busibess model.