this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
820 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
71717 readers
3707 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
signal requires a phone number and won't even allow you to send sms to those that aren't on signal.
its better, but still not great.
It used to function as a fallback SMS/MMS messenger (like how iMessage does) but when Google started moving to convert Android from SMS/MMS to RCS Signal made the hard decision to cut the fallback functionality rather than follow Google's new framework.
I personally hope once the dust settles Signal designs a RCS engine and restores the fallback functionality.
Yeah killing the sms function was basically a deal breaker for me, no matter how much I tried I could only get three people to use Signal, the rest were all sms. When the sms feature was removed 2 of the 3 dropped Signal completely, so now the only person I know who still uses it is my mom and even she still flips back and forth between Signal and Google messages when texting me.
I still have Signal on my phone and suggest it people when they ask how to contact me, but everyone just wants to text my phone number.
If you need to send sms to someone not on signal, why not just send them an sms
if they need my phone number to have an account anyway, they can offer both.
i dont need more apps that do the same thing. i need less.
It's arguably a very bad idea for a secure messenger to also provide an SMS interface, since those are basically cleartext
exactly. so I'm wondering what the purpose is for its need.
(edit: apologies- the phone number. needing the phone number.)
What? You use a secure messenger to send secure messages. It doesn't make sense for a secure messenger to offer sending insecure messages (SMS).
Edit: oh, you're probably referring to why it requires a phone number. This seems to be due to abuse/spam prevention, as otherwise creating new accounts to spam people with is basically free.
using the phone number is still a pretty unnecessary risk, imho.
there's no real need for it any longer.
Do you have a better approach to prevent spam in mind? Without a barrier of entry it becomes a serious issue.
Spam prevention? Ive got spam on Signal. Having your phone number be the barrier of entry doesn't make Signal a flawless app.
and considering i can just plug a google voice number in, I'm not sure its the best barrier.
Spam isn't a binary issue, where it either exists or doesn't. It could very well be the case that, without requiring a phone number, there'd be far more spam (since it'd be far easier to automatically create new accounts).
Again, do you have a better suggestion for spam & abuse prevention?