Just two nitpicks:

1. Marlinspike is misspelled throughout the article as "Merlinspike" &

2. This article is super mamón. That's a word here in Mexico I'm not sure how to perfectly put into English, but here are some examples from the article:

>Open Whisper Systems led by Moxie Merlinspike, who is behind Signal, is and was never behind freedom.

>People died for freedom, they are still dying and struggling around the globe. Then someone comes and stomps over every ideal which human society ever build up until this point in history and proclaims themselves the world leader! Think about it!

I think in English I might say something like 'Oh please', or 'stop wanking yourself so hard'.

The core message of 'I would prefer a decentralized messaging service and Signal is lacking in that regard' is severely diminished by the suffocatingly wanky [I want to say mamón, whoever has a better word here please offer suggestions!] tone of this article

I find the non free dependencies and centralization as annoying as the next person interested in the P2P sphere but I think Signal and Moxie have legitimate reasoning for their actions.

Signal is intended for consumption by every day people not security enthusiasts. Any complication or inconvenience jeopardizes this goal. Something like picking a server, choosing an implementation, exchanging identities, setting up an account somewhere are all complications that people don't normally want to think about. As it is, someone installs Signal from the play store, it becomes their default messenger, and they are done in a few taps.

I think the great success Signal has had is because of this mindset compared to the dozens of other projects.

This guy is an asshole. If he doesn't like signal is run he should do the work of running an alternative. Do the work of building something or shut the fuckup.

What's more, Moxie, created audio books of many well known anarchists texts, it's not something an authoritarian would do.

https://www.audioanarchy.org/

Moxie made signal work because he chose to ignore all the security 'experts' who keep insisting on unusable software. Use briar or the fully p2p version of matrix if you don't like signal. Or use the code Moxie has given to the public to adapt signal to your needs. He did 99% of the work for you.

"This approach is not only a threat to free software it is a recurring threat to human kind!" wut?

From 'Decentralized systems are hard to build' to 'Democracies suck because...'.

The mental gymnastics in this post.

Sounds more like someone has beef with Moxie.

Shut up and code.

Ok, if decentralized systems are harder but worth it: go write code. Prove you are right.

Over the years I’ve kept a mental list of all the dudes that claim they could write better code than some existing major project. Recently I did a little “where are they now” experiment and they were all still working entry-level jobs and (surprise surprise!) never created that better system they promised.

This goes back to the 1989ish “teenage ninja mutant netnews” project plus many others over all those decades.

If you read Dennis Ritchie’s response to The Unix Haters Handbook you’ll find it very polite says hate all you want, but until you’ve written code that changed the world, duck you.

My only thoughts are: put your money where your mouth is and help build a better solution that does follow your ideals. You can apparently even use the Signal source code to start as long as you don't use their servers and don't use their name.

Build things up rather than tearing others down for doing things differently.

No this is wrong. The poster frames Moxie as the threat to our society, forgetting that the real threat in this instance is mass sureveilance and Moxie (even though he has given a very bad impression with his attitude) has only given us tools to defend ourselves against the real threat. You don't like his ways? Take his open source software and run your own. This post makes no sense at all but it was interesting only in the sense that it gave me some insight in the development of signal and it's direction that I don't really like. However, associating that with authoritarianism? Outrageous

I might be a bit biased because I actually have a marlinspike laying on my desk (it needs to get back into my line locker at some point) but this article reads as if the author has something against either Moxie Marlinspike or his company. The leader of a successful project HAS TO impose limits to move the project towards success. The only concrete example in the article is the removal of the non-standard client which may have had a real rationale that wasn't mentioned in the article (protection of a trademark?)

There's a very vocal voice about how signal is bad and the other federated thing is better.

But signal has already accomplished its goal (easy crypto for everyone) while the other is undergoing soon a server transition, has released a new version of their android client that hasn't yet all of the features of the previous client, encrypted rooms can still receive unencrypted content and isn't e2e by default and when it is you need to cross verify every clients unless you can live with red messages about unknown sessions in the room, etc. And they have different goals anyway.

Now I am back to wiring the neighbourhood with cat 6 to set up our own Internet because 'hey isp authoritaranism'.

What dictatorship are we actually helping when using signal that has proven not to store any messages or files while the default usage and instalation of the federated one leave transferred files unencrypted on the server?

It's definitely a false sense of privacy.

I think authoritarianism is dangerous because of force.

The first time I used IRC I thought the mod system was unjust. In one channel the mods decided to allow democratic selection of mods, new mods were elected and the vote was “rigged” by extra accounts. The channel devolved into chaos and the mods took back over.

At a project level, authoritarianism is based on subject matter expertise and who started the project. And with open source this is strengthened by the ability to fork the project. If I don’t like a project, use something else. If I, and others, really don’t like the project, we can fork it and start our own copy.

Trying to “vote” a project you don’t like seems like a bankrupt idea to me. Either participate in the community, gain authority and credibility through contributions, or walk away and start a fork.

I think software works well with “benevolent dictatorships” as long as there’s no lock-in or requirement to use it.

Can someone provide a short technical summary for folks, like me, not closely tracking libre signal, F-droid, etc.? I get the freedom arguments, but what is the technical crux of the issue?

Did a reimplementation (competitor?) of signal without nonfree dependencies get removed from google store? If so, why? Etc.

Too many exclamation marks for one article. I'm not using Signal at the moment and might never do it, but their technical decisions are theirs and they will carry the consequences if they are wrong.

It is sad to see this push for yet another centralized client-locked comm-tool, being justified that this time it is OK because backing corporation is non-profit.

Ther real problem of centralized, closed systems is not profit, but concentration of power. Using such power to extract profit is just one of many perks of having such power.

I did not know about the Wire incident.

It is a shame that the main decision maker and owner of Signal is such an untrustworthy person - authoritarian, abuser of copyright and trademarks, working together with Facebook and helping Google keep their control by sabotaging fdroid.

Who seriously flagged this?

By denouncingly Movlxie Marlinspike (not Merlinspike) authoritarian because he run his free software project, the author pushes the communications ecosystem toward actual authoritarian systems. Fortunately the argument is utterly unconvincing as it is buzzword-based without logical reasoning.