Signal isn't federated ^[1][2][3.1]^; it's decentralized ^[1][2][3.2]^. Though, for all practical purposes, I would generally argue that it's centralized.

::: spoiler References

1. Signal-Server. signalapp. Github. Published: 2025-01-31T15:34:14.000Z. Accessed: 2025-02-01T09:24Z. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server.
   • This is the source code for the server that Signal uses.
2. "Signal (software)". Wikipedia. Published: 2025-01-06T09:34Z. Accessed: 2025-02-1T09:30Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software).
   • ¶"Architecture". ¶"Servers".

     Signal relies on centralized servers that are maintained by Signal Messenger. In addition to routing Signal's messages, the servers also facilitate the discovery of contacts who are also registered Signal users and the automatic exchange of users' public keys. […]

3. "Reflections: The ecosystem is moving". moxie0. Signal Blog. Published: 2016-05-10. Accessed: 2025-02-01T09:40Z. https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/.
   1. ¶5. to ¶"Stuck in time". ¶3-6

      One of the controversial things we did with Signal early on was to build it as an unfederated service. Nothing about any of the protocols we’ve developed requires centralization; it’s entirely possible to build a federated Signal Protocol-based messenger, but I no longer believe that it is possible to build a competitive federated messenger at all. […] [interoperable protocols] [have] taken us pretty far, but it’s undeniable that once you federate your protocol, it becomes very difficult to make changes. And right now, at the application level, things that stand still don’t fare very well in a world where the ecosystem is moving. […] Early on, I thought we’d federate Signal once its velocity had subsided. Now I realize that things will probably never slow down, and if anything the velocity of the entire landscape seems to be steadily increasing.

   2. ¶"Stuck in time". "Federation and control". ¶6.

      An open source infrastructure for a centralized network now provides almost the same level of control as federated protocols, without giving up the ability to adapt. If a centralized provider with an open source infrastructure ever makes horrible changes, those that disagree have the software they need to run their own alternative instead. It may not be as beautiful as federation, but at this point it seems that it will have to do. :::

Firefox has an issue that's been open for 20 years regarding implementing the XDG Base Directory Specification.

There's never a wrong time to update Arch Linux!

Without it being open source and not providing reproducible builds, the privacy claims are borderline weightless.

[…] psychedelics […]

I'm glad that it seems like the war on drugs is showing cracks. I completely support a move to legalize psychedelics.

please touch my-doc 🥺👉👈

Fake.

At 16kb/s per connection , I think you have to ask yourself if you’re really helping

That's a rather toxic mentality to have. Any amount of help is always appreciated.

No shout out for my boi, LocalSend?

[…] Me: "I don't work here"

This gives me big "ok boomer" vibes. Instead of this, imo, snarky response, could you not simply politely say that you prefer a human cashier?

Remember the human.

"Despises O'Toole"? Did I just get transported back in time 4 years?

My comment wasn't protesting the use of Signal; it was rather clarifying the misinformation in OP's post — ie misinformation that Signal is a federated service.

Lemmy ^[1]^

::: spoiler References

1. Type: Website. Title: "Lemmy". Accessed: 2025-08-03T05:12Z. URI: https://join-lemmy.org/. :::

[…] ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine […]

I'll be honest, I don't really understand this one. I'd guess that this is likely some hold over grudge from COVID, but I don't really understand why it's still a concern to get, presumably, more open access to those drugs. Aren't we long past that conversation? Feels like beating a dead horse.

Please tag your post as a joke, not real, or similar. If you leave it in its current state ^[2]^, you are knowingly peddling disinformation ^[1]^.

Update (2025-03-06T01:45Z): OP has modified the post's body stating that it's a fake tweet ^[3]^. Imo, the title should preface that it's fake ^[1]^.

::: spoiler References

1. Type: Article. Title: "Trump post saying US president should be impeached if Dow drops 1,000 points in 2 days isn't real". Author: "Jordan Liles". Publisher: "Snopes". Published: 2023-03-05. Accessed: 2025-03-06T01:37Z. URI: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-post-dow-impeachment/.
   • ¶4.

     […] Trump did not post a 2012 tweet saying the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping 1,000 points in two days should result in a U.S. president's immediate impeachment. […]

2. Type: Post (Through: App (Name: "Thunder".)). Title: "I mean we’ve done it twice let’s get it started already". Author: "@[email protected]". Publisher: ["Political Memes" ("![email protected]"). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy.]. Published: 2025-03-05. Accessed: 2025-03-06T01:42Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095410.

   

3. Type: Post (Through: Website (Name: "sh.itjust.works")). Title: "I mean we’ve done it twice let’s get it started already". Author: "@[email protected]". Publisher: ["Political Memes" ("![email protected]"). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy.]. Published: 2025-03-05T23:50:32Z. Accessed: 2025-03-06T01:54Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095410.

   :::

What a day to have eyes.

As of 2024-09-03T22:10:25.545Z, Starlink is now complying with Brazil's X ban [1].

::: spoiler References

1. "Starlink says it will block X in Brazil". Emma Roth. The Verge. Published: 2024-09-03T22:10:25.545Z. Accessed: 2024-09-04T04:17Z. https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/3/24235204/starlink-block-x-brazil-comply-elon-musk.

   “We immediately initiated legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court explaining the gross illegality of this order and asking the Court to unfreeze our assets,” Starlink says in a post on X. “Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing of our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil.” :::

Why does it seem that so many of those who claim that they're libertarians are not actually libertarians?

[…] raw milk […]

I'd support raw milk being legal for consumers to purchase so long as the manufacturers of said raw milk could be held to account for harm caused to a consumer who purchased it under the belief that it was safe — likely, this would also mean that, if it isn't safe, the product containing raw milk must otherwise display explicit warnings. I think a person should be allowed to take take their own risks.

gestures passionately "Download Lemmy!"

I'm feeling warm and fuzzy for some reason.