From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:   
      
   >>> Can't Signal eventually be bought off?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Interesting question. They are a foundation so that does put some   
   >> legal limitations on such scenarios. However! So was/is Open AI and   
   >> look what happened there.   
   >>   
   >> So I assume, since it is based in the US that the answer to your   
   >> question is a "yes". But I am not a lawyer. ;)   
   >   
   > Lol.  When you want to say you're not a lawyer, you should say IANAL,   
   > which is one of these ridiculous USENET acronyms. :) But what I really   
   > think is that nobody should say IANAL.  Lol.  First, who cares?  Lol.   
   > Second, it's almost never illegal to give your opinion on anything.   
      
   I was thinking about it, but in the end, didn't go all "acronym". ;)   
      
   > But, yeah.  You gave us a great example.  Open AI was a non-profit   
   > organization later turned for-profit.  So, the same nonsense could   
   > happen to Signal unless it has made any sort of unusual special   
   > arrangements.   
   >   
   > Companies and political parties (which are the same thing) should   
   > formalize for-life commitments.  For example, a Senate candidate, a   
   > Republic president and so on should register in writing some principles   
   > and promises that they actually must live up to, lest they be impeached.   
      
   I don't see how that could ever be done? I mean there are trusts and   
   foundations, but I assume they can be broken or dismantled.   
      
   On the other hand... there are active companies who are several 100s of years   
   old, and the catholic church has been going strong for what... 1980 years or   
   so?   
   So clearly it is possible to build organizations centred around an ideology,   
   business plan or other concept, that has been working for 100s if not 1000s of   
   years.   
      
   > Take a look at YouTube.  The world has invested 15 billion videos in it   
   > and now it needs to pay for viewing them by lack of privacy and ad   
   > viewing.  I can't recall when the world actually agreed to this deal.   
   > Deals should be clear from the very start.   
      
   I find it very fascinating that you can find all kinds of copyrighted material   
   on youtube, and that is fine, and no one cares. But when the piratebay guys   
   built a web site that links to movies (not hosting it themselves) it was prison   
   + fines for them. Different rules for google and private persons. This is very   
   sad.   
      
   > For me to use Signal, say, I'd need a for-life promise that it would   
   > never be taken over from me.  But, actually, I wouldn't use it either   
   > way because I just prefer a decentralized system.  Signal should   
   > redesign itself in a decentralized manner so that perhaps I could host   
   > my own server (for my own communication), say.  Just like e-mail and   
   > news are.   
      
   I don't use anything to chat with family since they would not be interested,   
   but   
   one project I do like, and which would probably be my choice if I tried to get   
   my family to use it is delta chat. I like the concept behind it. I also think,   
   but don't remember at the moment, that it is possible to use it on iphones,   
   android and for me, on regular computers and they all work together.   
      
   For audio/video I use jitsi. I don't host it myself, but my companys cloud   
   provider sells their own version of hosted jitsi. It works really well!   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)