> “we designed this to be anonymous and specifically intend/expect for it to be used in any way regardless of legality and are okay with it.”

That is also what Signal does. Or absolutely any end-to-end encrypted communication service at all - these are explicitly designed not to retain details of communication.

Do you want to declare them terrorists too?

▲

Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What Signal does is different than what A/I was in a number of ways.

▲

sph an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Which terrorists and criminals are texting right now on Signal? You (and hopefully Signal) have no idea whatsover, that's the point of privacy.

Now, if you are against private conversations, please state so clearly so we know which side of the fence you lean towards.

▲

boesboes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I disagree in more ways, so that invalidates your comment xoxox

▲

pepperoni_pizza 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You won't elaborate though, just make vague accusations.

▲

ricardobeat an hour ago | parent [-]

I think the difference they alluded to is that they manually vetoed new users, presumably based on their self-declared goals and ideology, whereas Signal etc are neutral platforms.

▲

pepperoni_pizza an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The A/I vetting was in the form of a form asking why do you want A/I email or blog. You could write anything in it.

Meanwhile, Signal requires a phone number, so it knows much more about your identity than A/I did.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		How do you know what the A/I vetting consisted of or what standards they held? They don't seem to have published any detailed description of the process, and by their own account they destroyed all records of the vetting after approval.

▲

Grombobulous an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah I didn’t elaborate since this was explained elsewhere in the thread.

▲

Jeff_Brown 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Please elaborate!