How relatable. He who hasn’t ever accidentally shared classified information about military strikes with a random journalist using a commercial chat app on a private phone, let him first cast a stone at them.
🫳🪨
Rork
I mean, I haven’t, but that’s because I don’t play Warthunder.
(Signal isn’t a commercial app. It’s free as in freedom, free as in beer, and free as in “there’s no data kept on you to possibly sell”. The Signal Foundation is a 501©(3) non-profit, and the Signal app’s development and running costs are funded through the Signal Foundation. Please stop using this “commercial app” line.)
That’s still commercial. You looked all that up and neglected the definition of commercial and commerce. Non-profits can be commercial and they also might not be, this one however is actually involved in commerce.
You looked all that up and neglected the definition of commercial and commerce.
No I didn’t, but I knew someone with no idea what they’re talking about would insist otherwise without a shred of evidence. Commerce is the voluntary exchange of products and services. If I give you a pig for a goat, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I give you a toothpick for two dollars, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I give you some data for money, we’ve engaged in commerce. If I paint your house so that you redo my shower, we’ve engaged in commerce.
this one however is actually involved in commerce
Cool story. How?
- The Signal app is free. It’s free to be compiled on its own. It’s free to be downloaded from the Play Store or the App Store. It’s free to be downloaded from their website. It’s free to be reused and redistributed and modified by anybody for any purpose at any time. At no point is Signal ever given anything of any tangible value by anybody for a download.
- The Signal app is free to use. No feature of the Signal app is gatekept in a way that would allow you to pay Signal anything of any value to use it.
- Signal’s servers are free to use, and it can be self-hosted.
- Signal does not collect any metadata on you in a way that could be worth anything to any commercial interest.
- Signal does not contain advertisements within its application or on its website.
- As the Signal Foundation is a 501©(3) non-profit, we can look at its form 990. Part VIII (page 9) breaks down income. 10.12 million was made in licensing fees, 0.14 million made in service revenue (keeping in mind that this can be any service, and it’s transparently obvious that Signal doesn’t make service revenue; past press releases have indicated that the Signal Foundation helps companies like MS incorporate the Signal Protocol into their messengers, which is likely where this comes from), and 8.4 million gross on selling securities. (I imagine the licensing fees are giving big corps like MS, Facebook, and Google the rights to say they use the Signal Protocol, which while an open standard is likely trademarked by the Signal Foundation. That doesn’t make Signal a “commercial app”.)
Please enlighten me how this constitutes commerce, because you haven’t actually said anything other than “yuh huh”. The Signal Foundation engages in commerce, but to say that the protocol or app or service is a commercial product is nonsense that not only has zero evidence but is disprovable.
It’s a 501 c3 yes, no one is arguing that. It is however very definitely involved in commerce but definition. “Nuh uh” and tax documents that day is a 501c3 just mean is non profit and as an fyi being a 501c3 doesn’t mean you can’t involve yourself in commerce it means the profits derived from it have to go back into the company or a legitimate charitable organization.
Correct me if I’m wrong but an app is in this case both a product and a service, so what definition are you using to say they aren’t involved in commerce when by your own definition they certainly are. Ps. Exchange doesn’t mean this for that though it can. Regardless, you using an app and giving it business and in exchange for a service is commerce.
It’s a 501 c3 yes, no one is arguing that.
Good. That’s a relief for the level of reality-denying yet to come.
It is however very definitely involved in commerce but definition.
The Signal Foundation is (although we’re playing fast and loose with “very”). But the Signal Foundation isn’t the product or service Signal.
“Nuh uh” and tax documents that day is a 501c3 just mean is non profit
Are you literate? The form 990 wasn’t linked to show their status as a 501©(3); it was put there so you could examine where they obtain their revenue. I explicitly told you why I linked it, gave you a page number, and even broke it down for you in case you didn’t want to look on your own.
and as an fyi being a 501c3 doesn’t mean you can’t involve yourself in commerce it means the profits derived from it have to go back into the company or a legitimate charitable organization.
CORRECT. I just showed you how the Signal Foundation is involved in commerce through licensing and service fees. Neither the licenses nor the service fees are generated by people using the Signal app.
Correct me if I’m wrong
You are.
but an app is in this case both a product and a service, so what definition are you using to say they aren’t involved in commerce when by your own definition they certainly are.
The point of commerce is the EXCHANGE of goods and services. Holy fucking shit you understand this even less than I thought. If an old lady asks me to get her something off the top shelf at the grocery store, I do it, and walk away, I’ve just performed a service for her. This was done with the understanding that nothing would be given back, and we did not fucking engage in commerce holy shit. The point is that Signal provides the product and service freely, i.e. no exchange takes place.
Ps. Exchange doesn’t mean this for that though it can.
??? I’m apparently losing my fucking mind. Yes, that is the definition of an exchange. This isn’t some technical definition. This is the unambiguous definition that everybody except apparently you uses.
Regardless, you using an app and giving it business and in exchange for a service is commerce.
??? WHAT BUSINESS? I’m losing my mind. Is this an argument in bad faith, or can you genuinely not understand these basic concepts? If I walk up to a house on Halloween and take some candy from a plate they’ve just left out, have I given Mrs. Jenkins from two blocks down my business? There is no business being given to Signal when I download or use their app. End of story.
Hats off if this is bait; you did a really good job.
No one is denying reality, I’m not even claiming you are im just saying you’re mistaken. The only laws in the USA that I know that refer to commerce as a specifically for profit enterprise are realty laws/zoning laws not shutting pertaining to 501c3 or business licenses generally.
Good then we agree they’re a commercial enterprise just not one that turns a profit, I’m not even sure how you intend to contort yourself to try to wriggle away from that admission.
A form 990 doesn’t mean they aren’t commercial either, it proves they aren’t a for profit business but that isn’t actually anything anyone is arguing though you seem to think that is the case.
Who provides the funding for the signal app again? Oh yeah by your admission a commercial enterprise the signal foundation. So who’s bending reality to their whim?
Yes the exchange here is a portion of market share in exchange for a service.
Does that old lady compete against for profit companies for market share in “getting something off the shelf”? No then that’s probably a bad example because they aren’t at all similar are they.
It doesn’t, you can exchange something without receiving anything, take for instance this conversation we’re exchanging opinion and ideals, I know I’m not getting anything out of it and I imagine you aren’t either correct?
I hope you actually read those because none of them actually support your position and notably you ignore the important definition ie. Commerce and commodity.
You get that their 501c3 allows them to act as a tax exempt business correct? Is every 501c3 a business? No, this one that acts as a business is a business, they’re just tax exempt because they can’t turn a profit legally. You keep saying I’m denying reality but dude they’re clearly a business.
It’s not bait but i kinda doubt that would change your attitude or the way you’re speaking to me for no particular reason. I will say it makes you seem less than sane if we’re being honest.
Sorry, I stepped away for a bit. I’m not rebutting a Gish gallop from someone who doesn’t understand third-grade English vocabulary and is this confident in their complete illiteracy. Commerce isn’t about competition; it’s about the exchange of goods and/or services, and you clearly don’t know what “exchange” means. I have people who actually speak English I could be talking to instead, so bye.
Also, the level of tone policing going on here is basically this video.
🫳🏼🪨
We have not all done this. We are not all breaking the law and trying to hide our government actions in a group chat.
I have definitely never sent a text or Signal message to the wrong person or group as well. It’s actually not hard to simply look at the recipient(s) before you compose a message. You even have the opportunity to double-check the message recipient(s) before you hit Send.
I’m gonna be an age-bigot for a moment and say this is mostly a problem for Boomers and Zoomers.
Agreed. I’m in my 40’s, and in my life I couldn’t do anything wrong. When I was five, I took batteries from a Blockbuster on accident and cried until I returned them in fear of doing something wrong. I can’t understand the idea of not being blunt/honest and spending the extra time to deceive anyone.
…we’ve all violated national security oaths and SCIF protocol?..yeah, no…
What the fuck headline is that. No, we haven’t done that, because we’re careful about that shit.
Way to normalize a massive failure of leadership and criminal act, USA Today.
Well, the newspaper is certainly living up to its name.
!That’s why the Trump administration’s Signalgate blunder was all anyone could talk about on news shows and social media, in workplaces, even in schools, said New York University psychology professor Tessa West.
Even West’s 11-year-old son came home from school Monday and confessed that he, too, had once added the wrong person to a group chat. “Mommy I did that, I did exactly what those Trump people did,” he told her.
“For 11-year-old boys, this is the most relatable thing that the Trump administration has done, which just shows you just how ubiquitous this experience is from Slack channels to group chats,” West said. “We’ve all done this.”!<
What a trash article. It reads like propaganda. This kind of reporting is frustrating. Framing a serious security breach—like the Trump administration’s Signal group chat blunder—as relatable because “even an 11-year-old has done it” feels disingenuous at best. Using a child’s anecdote to soften the impact of a significant government mistake trivializes the issue and distracts from the consequences of the breach.
We’re not talking about accidentally texting the wrong person in a school group chat. We’re talking about high-level officials mistakenly including someone in a discussion tied to sensitive military operations. That’s not “relatable”—that’s a failure in operational security, and it deserves scrutiny, not spin.
We’re also talking about high-level people illegally using a non-qualified app to avoid federal record keeping laws.
uh no i’ve never accidentally added a journalist to a group chat while laughing about bombing people in the middle east.
You gotta admit, though, that 11-year-old boy might make a good Secretary of Defense after this one.
Trying to fucking normalize this, complicit media removed. What a shit article.
We’ve all bombed Yemen!
We’ve all done it.
I might even bomb Yemen next month… I mean I’m not going to tell a reporter about it, though, I’m not as stupid as an 11-year-old boy.
Except my chats are not subject to public records act laws for oversight and public information, so if I choose to keep them off record it’s not illegal.
signalgate blunder
Can we fucking not add “-gate” to the end of everything that happens? It’s so overused that it diminishes the importance of actually-dangerous events like this one.
It all started with that Watergategate scandal.
What happens if we have a scandal about water?
Hydrogate
Rolls off the tongue better than aquagate would, that’s for sure.
Avoiding hackneyed terms would literally be a Game Changer!
It’s nothing, just a little bit of light treason.
Those are balls.
It’s true, I accidently share top secret information about bombing apartments every now and again. Whoopsie daisy.
I can’t think of a time when I added the wrong person to a group chat. I’m sure it’s happened, but probably not in the past 10-15 years.
And my online chats are pretty low-stakes, so it’s not like I’m trying very hard.
A few friends of mine used to have a sms-based group chat we used for many years. One of those friends kept losing phones and getting new numbers. At some point one of his older numbers texted something to the tune of “what the fuck is this, why are you texting me?!”. It turns out the old number had been reassigned.
then again, no state secrets were exchanged.
umm, no. I use work chats for work, and personal chats for personal. I might accidentally add the wrong colleague to a work chat, or wrong friend to a personal chat, but I’m never going to accidentally add a friend to a work chat because I don’t mix work and personal chats.
