[HN Gopher] New Year, New CEO ___________________________________________________________________ New Year, New CEO Author : 0xedb Score : 508 points Date : 2022-01-10 19:15 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (signal.org) (TXT) w3m dump (signal.org) | kbenson wrote: | This post, and how it explains that there's 30 people working | there now, made me realize that if I care about signal continuing | (and I do, since I really like it, especially that it has a | dedicated desktop client), that I should see how it makes money | and whether that's sustainable. Turns out it's donations, and now | I'm a donor through monthly charges through the mobile app. I | actually opted for that specifically because their web site noted | that they can't give you a badge in the app if you donate online, | and I thought showing the badge would be a good way for other | people to see and inquire about, and hopefully realize they can | donate too if they care to. | lmeyerov wrote: | Oh wow, I read the post and thought congrats Moxie, job indeed | done. We are still not there, so a lot of empathy for the | feelings behind that :) | | ... Except if it is donations and esp. Brian Acton's, or even | say Firefox with most of their money being one Google or Bing | search bar deal... the sustainable business isn't there yet. A | replacement CEO can be good just for that. Marlin as a CEO | found amazing product/user fit, and as a tech leader, hired | enough and built enough for a great dev culture. But there is | no sustainable product/customer fit yet, esp if they view the | user as not the established product: the market isn't paying. A | CEO focused on solving that would be quite healthy for | achieving sustainability! Hopefully Brian and his successor | will have more room now to figure that out, it's not easy, esp | given their privacy mission! | | (And still congrats and a lot of respect to Moxie for building | something people want & helps security, and growing a team to | deliver it, and everyone else for pushing into the next phase!) | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Turns out it 's donations_ | | Are they still doing the crypto scheme? I stopped donating when | that started, but would be more than happy to pick it back up | if they reversed course. | anonporridge wrote: | They just rolled it out globally, | https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin- | cryptocurrency... | frabcus wrote: | This feels more interesting than most cryptocurrency uses. | One thing a cryptocurrency _can_ be is an open protocol for | payments - it makes sense to try and make one into such a | protocol. The privacy preserving aspects of MobileCoin are | interesting and feel like they fit with Signal too. | [deleted] | ScoobleDoodle wrote: | I did the same thing. I had setup a monthly donation to | Signal several months before the crypto announcement. When I | heard about the crypto thing I cancelled my monthly donation. | kbenson wrote: | I'm not sure. I'm a bit torn on that. If they can sustain | themselves though some method, that's good, but I would | rather that method be aligned fairly closely with their | initial goals of security and privacy, which crypto pays good | lip service to but it's always the best at achieving, given | public ledgers. | | I guess I'm just worried about perverting what makes it a | good messaging client, and would rather they get money from | people that support that cause so they aren't as tempted to | chase some other path because the alternative is to shutter. | | That said, that can happen even if they can sustain | themselves through donations if the management/board decide | to do so. Just have to hope it stays the course. | 8ytecoder wrote: | Amazon Smile also has signal foundation as a non profit. | zwass wrote: | I too took to donating through the app so that I could get the | icon. My donations continue through their website, but it's | also important to spread the word to folks like you that Signal | needs funding to continue its mission! | cbsmith wrote: | I went through the same process. Acton gave them a huge | foundational base, but you want it to be a viable model in its | own right. | conroy wrote: | While this is true, remember that the Signal Foundation was | started with a sizeable investment from their new interim CEO | Brian Acton. | | > In February of 2018, Acton invested $50 million of his own | money to start the Signal Foundation alongside Moxie | Marlinspike > > https://signalfoundation.org/en/ | | He's worth at least a billion dollars, so one imagines that | Signal will continue as long as he's involved. | cge wrote: | Note that this was an unusual arrangement, to say the least. | My understanding, from memory of having briefly looked into | this, is that Acton _loaned_ $50m to the Foundation, rather | than donating it, in what appears to be a 50-year, interest- | free loan with no regular repayments. As an initial donation | of that size from an individual would have probably put the | Signal Foundation into private foundation status rather than | public charity status, this has at least the appearance of | trying to circumvent the public support requirements of | public charities. | | It is somewhat difficult for one individual to consistently | single-handedly support a charity in the US without causing | the tax status of the organization to change detrimentally. | cperciva wrote: | There are provisions for individual large donations to be | excluded from the public-support calculation if the charity | can make the case that they are "unusual". No idea if that | would apply here though. | moeadham wrote: | If they invest the 50M, and keep the team lean, it can be | long-term sustainable. | cge wrote: | But that---a $50m donation from an individual, then | sustaining the organization off investing that donation | ---is _exactly_ what, whether it makes sense or not, a | public charity in the US is usually not allowed to do. | That would make it a private foundation in the eyes of | the IRS. | | With that said, if I'm interpreting their 2019 filing | correctly, it appears that they _are_ making enough in | donations that they may have a legitimate claim to being | able to eventually repay the loan, and they are now | including imputed interest on the (interest-free) loan as | revenue. | mfer wrote: | From Wikipedia... | | > The foundation was started with an initial $50 million loan | from Acton, who had left WhatsApp's parent company, Facebook, | in September 2017.[8] The Freedom of the Press Foundation had | previously served as the Signal project's fiscal sponsor and | continued to accept donations on behalf of the project while | the foundation's non-profit status was pending.[4] By the end | of 2018, the loan had increased to $105,000,400, which is due | to be repaid on February 28, 2068. The loan is unsecured and | at 0% interest. | | Appears it wasn't an outright donation. I've always wondered | about the details behind this. Don't think I've seen | something like this before. | tw04 wrote: | It wasn't an outright donation as a protection mechanism. | If they go full Oculus he wants his money back. If they | remain true to the founding principals, it'll likely just | be forgiven upon death or put into some funky trust. | umeshunni wrote: | Giving money probably has some tax implications. Providing | a loan does not. | nostromo wrote: | This is technically true, but the donation would be tax | advantageous over a loan, so I can't imagine that's the | reason. | chippiewill wrote: | An unsecured, 0% interest loan with a 50 year term may as | well be a donation. | nostromo wrote: | It gives him more control over the org than a donation | would have. | | For all intents an purposes, he owns Signal. He's the | org's benefactor, lender, founder, board member, and now | CEO. | Kye wrote: | People said the same about Keybase because of who was behind | it. Just because it's got moneyed people running it doesn't | mean they won't sell once their priorities change. | daniel-cussen wrote: | You can't take him for granted like that. Yeah he donated a | lot and yeah he has more and yeah he left $1B on the table | after leaving Facebook, but he just can't do it all alone. | | If you're rich you get all kinds of people in your life | soliciting your money, you gotta watch it like a hawk, it's | easy to lose a billion dollars. | cpach wrote: | Good point. And he might also want to donate to other | charities. There are many worthy causes besides Signal. | | And it's probably sound for Signal to not rely on one | single wealthy donor. | dheera wrote: | > There are many worthy causes besides Signal | | To be fair, that applies to non-billionaires as well. | cpach wrote: | Indeed! | rantanplan wrote: | > it's easy to lose a billion dollars | | :O | novok wrote: | 20 $50 million donations to various groups and $1 billion | dollars is gone. You could probably do that in 5 years | and still not come out as effective. | louthy wrote: | > it's easy to lose a billion dollars | | With doors that go like this or this and not like this | sdenton4 wrote: | The Signal Foundation is in Benevity, which powers lots and | lots of corporate gift matching. I give a yearly matched | donation each december as I try to reach the max matching for | my company. | SkyMarshal wrote: | Thanks for pointing that out, wasn't aware of it, just | subscribed too. | brylie wrote: | Thanks for the suggestion. I just set up an in-app recurring | donation to get my profile badge too | gojomo wrote: | With the integration of MobileCoin, Signal has a potential | web3-style path to sustainability. | | https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-cryptocurrency... | ForHackernews wrote: | No, this is very bad news and could end up with end-to-end | encryption being outlawed in the name of preventing money | laundering https://www.theverge.com/22872133/signal- | cryptocurrency-paym... | e40 wrote: | I just stopped my signal donation today, which I've been doing | monthly last year due to this: | | https://amycastor.com/2021/04/07/signal-adopts-mobilecoin-a-... | | Was it an overreaction? I don't think so. I feel dumb stuff | like this, massive conflicts of interest, happens too often | these days, and I'm voting with my wallet. | phgn wrote: | Hearing about Wikipedia's deceptive fundraising messaging [0] | made me question all donations to large non-profits -- but I | guess a 30-people org is a different matter. Plus, Signal | doesn't seem to be aggressive about it. | | [0] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt- | fundrais... | wrycoder wrote: | _When the WMF announced the creation of an endowment with the | Tides Foundation in January 2016, on Wikipedia's 15th | birthday, its goal was to accumulate $100 million over 10 | years, as "a permanent source of funding to ensure Wikipedia | thrives for generations to come." | | Just five years later, the endowment passed $90 million, and | the $100 million mark, now described as an "initial goal," | will be reached this year._ | | https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/tides-foundation/ | | Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance. | SquishyPanda23 wrote: | > Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance. | | I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political | stance is? | kodah wrote: | > The Tides Foundation is a major center-left grantmaking | organization and a major pass-through funder to numerous | left-leaning nonprofits. | | The fact that they declare themselves center-left is not a | violation of 501(c)(3)? | wolverine876 wrote: | I forget the precise rules on political activity, but | when the IRS investigated what was (blatent, IIRC) | violations of it by right-wing organizations several | years ago, the right and GOP pointed their propaganda | cannons at the IRS and its head, a non-partisan public | servant, making it clear that such rules were not to be | enforced (and the rule of law is inferior to the GOP). | chipotle_coyote wrote: | What you're quoting is InfluenceWatch's description of | the Tides Foundation, not their description of | themselves. Their own description (from their About page) | is "Tides is a philanthropic partner and nonprofit | accelerator dedicated to building a world of shared | prosperity and social justice." | calcifer wrote: | No? What provision do you think are they violating? | YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote: | Why would it be? | ekanes wrote: | This deserves more attention. | sam_lowry_ wrote: | Now it becomes clear why he was attacking Telegram and web3 so | tirelessly lately. | dang wrote: | Please don't post unsubstantive comments or cross into personal | attack. | | Thoughtful critique is welcome, of course, but it would need to | contain a lot more information than this. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | x3ro wrote: | He was attacking Telegram because he's resigning as the CEO of | Signal? What is the obvious connection there that you have | seen? | sam_lowry_ wrote: | IMHO, he was attacking _Telegram_ because Signal lost in | popularity to Telegram, and investors were not happy. | | And he was attacking _web3_ because these same investors | pushed cryptocurrency features into Signal, and he was wildly | against it. | sleepybrett wrote: | He was attacking Telegram because it was letting people | believe that they conversations were e2e encrypted when | they weren't. | tptacek wrote: | Signal doesn't have investors. | sam_lowry_ wrote: | [deleted] | Klonoar wrote: | This reads like conspiracy theory with no hard facts to | back it up. It's been demonstrably false as well. | tptacek wrote: | Obviously, none of this is true. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >investors were not happy. | | Who? | [deleted] | WaitWaitWha wrote: | Come up with a commercial Signal server, where the server is not | at/by Signal. | | Sell the server to secret squirrels, etc. | apayan wrote: | Thank you to Moxie and the entire team at Signal for building | this incredible software and releasing it out in the world! I've | been using it since the TextSecure and RedPhone days and moving | more and more of friends and family to it ever since. | | To the HN crowd, please become a sustainer (monthly donations) of | Signal through the app. You get a badge that way, which is an | opportunity for those you communicate with to learn about | becoming a sustainer too. | sulam wrote: | This all seems like good stuff, but as someone who used to work | with Moxie, I think the obvious should be stated: the only reason | for an interim CEO is to move out of the role immediately. He | could just as easily have stayed in the role while he hunted for | a successor. | | I'm curious why he wants to vacate post haste, but I'm used to | not having my curiosity satisfied when it comes to Moxie. :) | xeromal wrote: | >I will continue to remain on the Signal board, committed to | helping manifest Signal's mission from that role, and I will be | transitioning out as CEO over the next month in order to focus | on the candidate search. Brian Acton, who is also on the Signal | Foundation board, has volunteered to serve as interim CEO | during the search period. I have every confidence in his | commitment to the mission and ability to facilitate the team | for this time. | wolverine876 wrote: | I noticed that too. Why is it so important to leave this month, | after 10 years? I hope everything is ok, with the Signal | organization and with Moxie. | streamofdigits wrote: | Signal has already changed history in a way. The past few years, | as trust in a certain type of ethically challenged tech company | has come crashing down it was vitally important to have a | tangible example of a working, usable alternative. | | Important for users, but also important for policy makers and | other people in high places that are typically tech-illiterate | and may assume that trillion dollar valuation implies TINA (there | is no alternative). | | Moxie and that tiny group of developers @ signal have been | granted a moment of extreme leverage and they made great use of | it. | | Godspeed | lelandbatey wrote: | As a five-year user of Signal, thanks for making Signal such a | fantastic messenger, Moxie. | irq wrote: | Maybe Signal will finally add native Apple M1 support now? It's | been over a year and they already have ARM code in their iOS | version. | celsoazevedo wrote: | The beta version of the client received M1 support last month: | | https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/4461#issu... | | It opens way, way faster than the Intel version. | monocasa wrote: | Yeah, JITs on top of Rosetta2 is one of it's weakest areas. | warning26 wrote: | My hope is that maybe with new leadership Signal can finally get | export/migration features. There seems to have been a deliberate | resistance to adding them. | wolverine876 wrote: | A big risk is that the new leader, having less authority and | fewer credentials for their choices, will compmromise Signal's | security to pressure from the public. | | With only 30 people, I am glad things are delayed. That is | necessary if Signal doesn't develop and release them before | they can be done right. | frisco wrote: | I just hope that moxie's replacement is someone with as strong a | reputation for fighting for the principles at stake and the | ability to defend them. How many people could have written the | Cellebrite blog post? Probably not many. The hidden pressures on | Signal staff must be enormous, as likely the the world's single | most valuable surveillance target. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Adding MobileCoin to Signal really changed my perceptions about | just how principled the Signal foundation really is. I have a | lot of respect for much of Moxie's work, but the MobileCoin | thing is still a head-scratcher. | Klonoar wrote: | For context - have you actually tried it? It's pretty good. | ForHackernews wrote: | It's such a terrible idea for many reasons, but mainly | because it's like waving a red flag at ignorant lawmakers: | https://www.theverge.com/22872133/signal-cryptocurrency- | paym... | ignoramous wrote: | Why so? Moxie helped design MobileCoin. Besides, his recent | post on web3 lays it bare what he thinks of it. | | MobileCoin, in time, I hope grows up to be a credible | alternative to Facebook's USDP (Diem), like how Signal is to | WhatsApp. I don't think its inclusion a head-scratcher at | all. If anything, I hope it serves its purpose well, and | isn't unfairly regulated to oblivion. | phgn wrote: | I got the impression that his web3 post [0] only talks | about token incentives, DAOs and other decentralisation for | decentralisation's sake. There's no mention of MobileCoin, | which I gather he just sees as tool to facilitate anonymous | payments (it's a token on top of Stellar). | | [0] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first- | impressions.html | gojomo wrote: | Though MobileCoin may have borrowed a consensus mechanism | from Stellar, I've seen no indication that it's a token | on the Stellar chain. | phgn wrote: | You're right, sorry I have misread this then. According | to Wikipedia, MobileCoin uses its own blockchain based on | mechanics from Stellar and Monero [0]. That also makes a | lot more sense technically, and explains the supposed 4 | years of development [1]. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobileCoin | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26726246 | daniel-cussen wrote: | So I think the motivation was, let's fight censorship. What | gets censored? Speech, and also...money. OK then let's enable | money too. | bawolff wrote: | Which part do you find objectionable? | | I hate most of the cryptocurrency-bs, but mobilecoin seems to | have been designed carefully to avoid most of the objectional | aspects of blockchain stuff. | anonporridge wrote: | This is the main part, https://www.reddit.com/r/signal/comm | ents/mm6nad/bought_mobil... | robby_w_g wrote: | Prior discussion can be found here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26724237 | | The CEO has posts in the thread as well. | phgn wrote: | Here's the direct link to the comments from MobileCoin's | CEO (not Moxie): | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26726246 | | Funny how he avoids answering any questions about | financial incentives and token sales. | | Edit: Also note how the mentioned primary goal of | MobileCoin is to "fund Signal", not to be a payments | layer for it. | [deleted] | tempest_ wrote: | I balk at any mention of crypto as a rule (since the | landscape is so saturated with hucksters) but I have to | assume it is to provide a functionality similar to WhatsApp | Pay, Venmo and whatever WeChat has. | | Those in app type payments are a huge part of message app | usage in some parts of the world where I am sure Signal would | like to increase uptake. | cpach wrote: | It makes me nervous too. However, I will continue to use | Signal but without using MobileCoin. I hope Signal will do | what's right. | | [In my region we already have a good system for mobile | payments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swish_(payment)] | xvector wrote: | This is my biggest concern. Hopefully the replacement will | truly care about user privacy and have the balls to fight for | it, even if it means going up against large (governmental) | organizations. | capableweb wrote: | > I just hope that moxie's replacement is someone with as | strong a reputation for fighting for the principles at stake | and the ability to defend them | | Yes, and who has a better reputation for fighting for | principles than Brian Acton, one of the guys who made Whatsapp | and subsequently sold it to the most morally correct company in | the world: Facebook. | fragmede wrote: | I mean, he walked away from $800 million in Facebook stock | because his belief in privacy wouldn't allow him to continue | working on WhatsApp, post-acquisition. I think that speaks | louder than selling WhatsApp in the first place. | mfer wrote: | Acton has had an interesting road since selling WhatsApp to | Facebook. That includes leaving Facebook with $850 million | USD in shares on the table for leaving early and telling | people to delete their Facebook accounts. Looking at what | he's done tells the story of someone who learned many lessons | since he sold WhatsApp. | armchairhacker wrote: | i wonder if Acton figured that WhatsApp might lose to | competitors and privacy-focused people would migrate to a | new app anyways, and he could do more good with almost $1 | billion. | | And also $1 billion is quite a lot of money. | skrebbel wrote: | People make mistakes. Seems to me Acton is trying to do | everything he can to correct it. | bawolff wrote: | There are two types of people in the world: those who sell | their start ups for 16 billion, and those that dont have | startups people are willing to pay 16 billion for. | | I am very doubtful that very many people here would turn down | that sort of money if given the opportunity. Its very easy to | wax poetic about virtue when nobody is trying to tempt you. | nicholasjarnold wrote: | I've been a user and evangelizer of Signal (aka TextSecure and | even RedPhone when the audio piece was split off as a separate | app) for a very long time now. I admire the work that Moxie and | the entire team have put in over all these years. Thank you all | so much for the great work, whether it be writing blog posts | rebutting the "I have nothing to hide" people or implementing | open and secure-by-default protocols and apps that put privacy | within reach of even the least technically-savvy among us! | | I hope the next adventure is as fruitful as this one was Moxie. | Cheers! | mplewis wrote: | Will the new CEO remove the Mobilecoin scam asset from the secure | messaging product? | zzzbra wrote: | wonder what Moxie will get up to next, given his web3 skepticism | and the state of the tech industry today. | CameronNemo wrote: | Hopefully he finds some time to sail heh. | xbar wrote: | I do miss the days of various squats and plywood boat | failures. More of that please, Moxie. But mostly, thanks for | Signal. | creamytaco wrote: | His web3 skepticism did not stop him from getting involved with | "MobileCoin" some time ago, or was that conveniently forgotten? | | https://www.wired.com/story/mobilecoin-cryptocurrency/ | 0xy wrote: | Another scamcoin or "open source" (not really) project, no | doubt. | dang wrote: | Please don't cross into personal attack. | null0pointer wrote: | I'm a big fan of Moxie. Thanks for all the work you've done to | give people a free and secure way of communicating. A truly | important cause. | | Ultra-cynical take: I wonder if there's an element of avoiding | conflict-of-interest accusations regarding Mobilecoin. | tandav wrote: | Still require SIM to sign up | iqanq wrote: | Canada wrote: | If you get good value out of Signal and you can afford 5, 10 or | 20 bucks a month get that auto-donate signed up. I can't think of | a more cost effective way to directly contribute to practical | privacy. | AlbertCory wrote: | If it's really a 501(c)(3), you can use Amazon Smile to give a | small percentage of your purchases (1/2 of 1% if memory serves) | to Signal. | gordon_freeman wrote: | Good tip. I am donating currently to National Parks | Foundation using AmazonSmile but I could definitely consider | this in future. | gordon_freeman wrote: | Will Apple still able to get the 30% cut if I do using in app | payment? Any idea? Does it make more sense to sign up for | monthly donation via web to get more money donated to Signal vs | not getting a badge? | artinmg wrote: | On their website Signal says no: | https://support.signal.org/hc/en- | us/articles/4408365318426-S... | saurik wrote: | If you are using In-App Purchase then yes, for almost | whatever it is (I think they might have at least a couple | special deals with major publishing companies... not Signal | ;P) you are "donating" 30% of your money to Apple. | gordon_freeman wrote: | Thanks - I would like to get all my money to Signal in this | case so I just signed up for monthly donation using their | website link. | nacs wrote: | Not in this case. According to Signal, neither Google nor | Apple get a cut: | | https://support.signal.org/hc/en- | us/articles/4408365318426-S... | Canada wrote: | Is it different? I just did it via app without a second | thought. | | If you only get the badge via app I think it's better even if | a chunk is taken by the app store, because then people ask | "wtf is that heart thing?" and then I can tell certain | contacts what it is get them to do it too. | onphonenow wrote: | The mobile coin pumpup powered by the nonprofit Signal Foundation | was weird. | | They got the coin up to $60 from something like $3. | | This starts to be another hustle (and with the money folks can | make exploiting a nonprofit in this way no surprise really). | | Normally the nonprofit would own the asset it is improving in | this situation or get a BIG cut of the upside for leveraging an | asset like the Signal network (just as any crypto coin company | would). | | In this case it all seemed very very shady. | | My guess is someone wants to cash out somewhere on using the | nonprofit to pump things up perhaps? I'd pay attention to what | they are doing in the crypto space recently to see if there are | any correlated activities | aemreunal wrote: | I'm wondering if the recent "adding crypto transfers to Signal" | stuff had anything to do with this... | djanogo wrote: | I was wondering the same, what if this is to avoid conflict | with monetization of Mobilecoin. | EGreg wrote: | I wish Moxie sees this, would love to have a conversation and | maybe have him work together with our project: | https://community.intercoin.org/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram... | chagaif wrote: | I'm still really disappointed he didn't go for a more long term | solution, federation: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on- | privacy-versus-freedom | fossuser wrote: | Moxie's post that your Matrix link was a response to: | https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ | | I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to | recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his | recent Web3 post). People don't want to run their own servers. | In that world you'll have federated services that are mostly | centralized with a much worse user experience than centralized | competition. Signal's real competition isn't Matrix, it's FB | messenger, Whatsapp, and iMessage. | | The incentive failures are actually upstream from the | application layer of the web. Running a linux server is too | hard, spam and auth are issues with the current tech stack, | dependencies are a mess of complexity and federated systems | built on the current stack can't really solve these issues so | end up recentralizing to sysadmins that do (at best). This is | the reason I started working on Urbit, I think to fix this for | real you have to fix problems farther up the stack. | | Given the current landscape, Signal is the best available | option imo for most people. Hopefully if Urbit succeeds we can | have the federated system we want with UX that's actually | competitive. | chagaif wrote: | I prefer the Element UX especially since I can actually use | it for WhatsApp/Telegram which I still use heavily, there are | a lot of people/businesses/governments backing on Matrix, | Signal is just another app that is controlled by the US | government and I don't see much privacy there in the long | term... Yes it will be recentralized but not completely, how | come E-Mail did so good? | fossuser wrote: | You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience | still personally prefers to run their own email server, but | your grandma will never prefer it or use it and neither | will 90% of the public. | | Email is an example of this class of failure. Almost | everyone uses a centralized provider (mostly Google) and | even if you do go through the effort to run your own server | since nearly everyone you interact with is using gmail it's | mostly pointless anyway. | | Signal is not controlled by the USG (see recent doc about | what metadata they have access to via Signal). I ran a | Matrix server for a while, the UX around setting up | encryption is bad (not for lack of trying, it's just a hard | problem given the constraints). Most people just use the | Matrix.org server and will never run their own (which is | the recentralization risk I'm talking about) - at best | you'll have a couple providers, and dealing with spam is | still a problem. You'll also have a system that adapts | slowly because it's harder to make changes to this kind of | system, it'll always be worse. | | To escape the incentives that lead back to recentralization | and to create a federated system that isn't just another | niche nerd hobby, you really have to think about the issues | that lead back to centralization from first principles. I | think Urbit's design and the tradeoffs they make do this. | | https://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional- | progr... | | https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit | rglullis wrote: | > You may personally prefer it just as some niche | audience still personally prefers to run their own email | server. | | No. This is a false dichotomy. There is a very healthy | market for email service providers. Basically every | domain registrar runs one, a good amount of ISPs... there | can be a cottage industry for service providers. | | > Almost everyone uses a centralized provider | | Because the large companies make it free to try to make | their money by either exploiting the data or by using the | email service as a loss leader. Signal can not do either, | so they will have to rely on some other revenue stream, | or they will end up like Mozilla. | rglullis wrote: | The "problem" of federated systems is that it dilutes power | across businesses and does not allow any single entity to | control the ecosystem. _This is a good thing_ , except that | it makes it harder to fight head-to-head with trillion dollar | companies that use messaging platforms as loss leaders. | | Thing is, Signal has the _exact same issue_ : the top post of | this thread is about how people are feeling compelled to | donate to Signal so that it does not rely on one kind | benefactor. If people want to donate to Signal, why not | donate/hedge a bit by donating to Matrix or to the | Conversations (the best XMPP client) developers? | | > Signal is the best available option imo for most people. | | Signal is still centralized. It is "open source" only in | name, as the client code was constantly out-of-date and it is | basically impossible to fork it or run your own server. It | has a very poor record cross-client vulnerabilities and it | forces everyone to be dependent on the security of their | smartphones. How many times do we have to re-learn not to put | all of our eggs in the same basket? | kitkat_new wrote: | > I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to | recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his | recent Web3 post). | | it does not, see Email | gringoDan wrote: | The New Yorker profile of Moxie stuck with me. Worth reading in | full: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/26/taking-back- | ou... | | HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24824956 | nxtbl wrote: | and from TFA above: | | > In early 2018, Acton and Marlinspike announced the formation | of the Signal Foundation, a nonprofit. Acton, the foundation's | chairman and sole member, seeded it with a no-interest, fifty- | million-dollar loan. | | additionally from Wikipedia: | | > By the end of 2018, the loan had increased to $105,000,400, | which is due to be repaid on February 28, 2068. The loan is | unsecured and at 0% interest. | ushakov wrote: | unsecure 0% interest 105M loan? where can i get this? | scrollbar wrote: | I see the terms as a donation or grant. The money still is | a loan (vs a grant), but the terms are well below "market" | in order to support the non-profit's cause. | wmf wrote: | But why structure it that way? Does anyone know? | cge wrote: | My guess was that it is a way of keeping the organization | from failing the public support test | (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt- | organizatio...), which generally requires that at least | 1/3 of the organization's support comes from the general | public, not from, eg, one individual donor. Failing the | public support test would make the foundation a private | foundation instead of a public charity, which would | change a number of regulations and have a small (usually | 2%) on investment income. | | What's particularly odd is that, if they were they a | private foundation, as Acton is a board member (who also | appears to have sole power to determine board members), I | think the loan itself would be a prohibited act of self- | dealing. | usrusr wrote: | Might have also been an attempt to appear less of a | target for that breed of self-serving administrators that | seem to haunt certain other foundations in tech. And to | keep reasonably humble people reasonably humble. | schoen wrote: | Just invent an awesome and innovative set of cryptographic | protocols, make an incredibly usable set of secure | communications tools with them, and agree to give them away | for free to the world. Hopefully you will be blessed in | return with the same kind of support that Moxie was! | dstroot wrote: | Moxie - thank you so much for building Signal for the world. | gordon_freeman wrote: | Thank you Moxie for all your hard work, commitment and mission | driven leadership to get Signal where it is today. I have many | friends and family living across the world and I was able to | replace WhatsApp with Signal and got out of FB ecosystem and | really enjoying the peace of mind that comes with Signal's | privacy and non-tracking for my communication needs. A big thank | you indeed. | 650REDHAIR wrote: | Thanks for everything, Moxie! | | I'm sure you don't remember this story, but I remember years ago | (2011?) having a drink with you and Stuart while we were working | out of I/O Ventures. I was talking about buying a cheap sail boat | and you very calmly told me that the ocean will kill me. That it | was always trying to kill me. | | Anyway, I think about that conversation nearly every time I'm in | or on the water and it's definitely kept me alive. | okneil wrote: | Great to see Brian Acton (founder of WhatsApp) taking over as | interim CEO and the logical choice. | capableweb wrote: | Hopefully remains as interim. I'm still suspicious based on | previous experience with him selling Whatsapp to Facebook and | all that. Actually, very surprising move, are they planning to | sell Signal? | zzzbra wrote: | I can't imagine they intend to sell Signal but then when I | say "they" it's always been a stand in for Marlinspike. We | can only hope he's correct in terms of the team he's built | continuing the mission that had formerly been guided by his | judgment. | nicoburns wrote: | Obviously you can't be sure he's sincere, but he's on record | as saying he regrets that sale. | anonporridge wrote: | * step 1: Make bucket of money selling your private comm | app to FB. | | * step 2: Publicly declare your regret for that decision. | | * step 3: Take leadership of big competitor to previous | app. | | * step 4: Goto step 1 for double profit and to continue | tearing down functioning attempts at large scale private | communications platforms. | fossuser wrote: | The only reason Whatsapp was bidded up to an _insane_ 19 | Billion sale value was because Acton did not want to | sell. Note that it 's not insane in terms of value (in | hindsight this was clearly a good buy for FB), but insane | when considering that value for your small 30 person | company. | | That's a crazy sale price, I'd like to see you turn it | down. | | It can be true that he didn't want to sell and regrets it | _and_ just couldn 't reject that offer, the opportunity | costs available to you at the level are nuts. This is a | risk with centralized services, it's why we need systems | that don't require benevolence: | https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/07/14/the-serfs-of- | facebook... | | Most people don't have principles valued at 19B. | | I think Urbit is a potential way to get there, but a lot | of the web3 ownership model points in this direction. | ayngg wrote: | Also turning down money for yourself is one thing, but | turning it down for your employees and everyone else | involved is different. | fossuser wrote: | Agreed - at that level you're talking nearly 100M for | each employee? Maybe more? | | Even if I'm off by a magnitude (and I think I'm not) - | that's life changing money for everyone that helped him | build Whatsapp. | btdmaster wrote: | Try Matrix: https://joinmatrix.org. | fossuser wrote: | Matrix doesn't solve these issues, see: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29882848 | | That said, I think Matrix is cool and appreciate what | they're trying to do. I just think without solving the | upstream problems you won't be able to succeed beyond a | niche audience. | _heimdall wrote: | There's a step between 1 and 2 that you missed - choose | to quit from FB and leave $800,000,000 in stock on the | table | anonporridge wrote: | That's an important part of getting step 3 to happen. | | You need proof of regret, and $800 million seems to have | been enough. Cheap money if you can make step 4 happen | such that it nets more than 0.8 billion. | lelandbatey wrote: | Given that Brian Acton apparently _" left over a dispute with | Facebook regarding monetization of WhatsApp, and voluntarily | left $850 million in unvested options on the table by leaving | a few months before vesting was completed"_[0] and that he | went on to found the Signal Foundation one year later with | Moxie Marlinspike in 2018, I feel it's not a super clear | signal that Acton or Marlinspike are trying to "sell" Signal. | | [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton#WhatsApp | lovecg wrote: | Just for context, that's after vesting a few billions | already. | Hasu wrote: | Okay, but still. It seems like a stretch that the guy is | secretly evil but voluntarily gave up almost $1 billion | to deceptively prove he's not actually a bad guy. You can | claim to be a good guy and wait a few months to cash out | - leaving money on the table IS a real signal, even if | he's already rich. | avarun wrote: | You're the only one that has used the word "evil" here. | anonporridge wrote: | Depends on if he _actually_ left money on the table or if | he speculated that there would be more money coming to | him if he publicly left FB when he did. | | Social/public good will is a kind of money itself that | can't easily be measured in dollars. That's a big part of | the reason extremely wealthy people engage in | philanthropy. | | Good will is a currency that opens some doors that no | amount of raw dollars can open. | s17n wrote: | They incorporated Signal as a nonprofit, so it is illegal for | anybody to personally profit from the sale of Signal. Of | course, that hasn't always stopped people from trying (eg, | the recent debacle with the .org tld). | ehPReth wrote: | What happened there? | izacus wrote: | Hopefully that means he'll prioritize things that are making | Signal a hard sell to WhatsApp and Telegram users. | | Making Signal a messenger on equal footing would go a long way | to increase adoption. | marricks wrote: | He did leave Facebook because of privacy issues right? That | should be a good sign... | lovecg wrote: | I wouldn't be so sure. He also benefitted greatly from | selling it to Facebook in the first place, and stayed on for | a few years. | dymk wrote: | Everybody that joins Facebook thinks they can "fix" it, and | many stick around trying to do so. Eventually they leave. | saxonww wrote: | The WhatsApp sale also happened back in 2014. I don't | think FB was especially well liked at that time, but they | didn't have as bad a reputation as they do now. 7-8 years | is a long time. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I remember WhatsApp touting the fact that they charge a | $1/year subscription to be evidence that they will not | sell out data about your use of the app and your | contacts, presumably as a contrast to the chat apps | offered by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others | wanting to sling ads. | | Obviously, the offer from FB was worth selling out for. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-10 23:00 UTC)