[CactusRocket]

It's not in the same ballpark, but this entire topic is about "An Ethical Replacement for WhatsApp". Should we then accept potential privacy issues with another service, if they are somewhat of an improvement overall? Or should we rather strive to find an alternative which also addresses or avoids those potential privacy issues.

I've been really hesitant to view Signal as a privacy friendly alternative to WhatsApp, because they still don't offer any way to make an account without a phone number, while a phone number is definitely not required to run a chat service.

Also the fact that servers are run by just one organization is very troubling to me. It's just not the right direction.

[yusina]

Perfect is the main enemy of good. I rather use Signal to escape the big tech clown show than wait for another decade for the perfect tech to come along, meanwhile either not communicating with anybody or using the exact services I really want to avoid.

I'm still waiting for the "other issues" to be explained that Signal supposedly has. I'm ok with my contacts knowing my phone number, and I opened the Signal account ages ago. Anything else to be concerned about?

[CactusRocket]

I feel like "perfect is the enemy of good" only works when you (still) have to put considerable effort to make it better, e.g. when building software.

However currently there are already better alternatives than Signal, so in my personal opinion I feel like that saying does not apply.

It's very fine if you (and most people) are OK with sharing some personal information with a United States organization. That does not mean that everybody is fine with that, or that it's a very good solution to a chat service problem. I'm glad that Signal is a good match for your needs. But there are those of us who would rather see a decentralized service with which no personal information has to be shared.

In these kinds of discussions, I often find it a little strange when others decide that a certain solution or product must be good for everyone only because they are fine with it themselves.

[xtiansimon]

> “Perfect is the main enemy of good”

Interesting to see this debate evolve.

Seems that phrase “perfect is the enemy of the good” is a relativistic argument. But the title’s frame is “ethics”, which one definition describes as “what is good in and of itself”. In that frame, perfection is the point, no? Though, I imagine you argue in this framework by elevating some aspects to that high standard, and work to convince other aspects are secondary. Otherwise, result is a preference argument where the trade offs you made are silent or obscured behind the practicality of your choices.