It tooks years to implement the whole functionality. They also weren't working on this feature the whole time, but it was on the list. Adding another payment method isn't the same.

Not to mention their current payment method requires play services, which has probably already de-anonymized the user

I agree it's not great to require play services, but it isn't going to always be the only option. It's in beta, so clearly isn't finished.

The users are not de-anonymized, they use a ZKP transaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof). We don't need to have to trust Google, it's the whole point of a zero trust model. Zero trust is required

This was more so rhetorical to try to get to the root of why people are wanting it banned. For many, they dislike AI and are coming up with any other excuse to validate their feelings, such as "bad quality". It's a valid position on its own to just not like AI, and if that's how people feel that's what the rules should reflect. If it's truly just about quality, then it would be fine if everything was AI as long as it was high quality. I imagine most people don't want the latter, but that seems to be more what the conversion should be addressing

The way I see it, that's next. This feature is in beta, and I imagine they wanted to rollout the payment method that would be most used, or maybe easiest to implement first for testing. They have already officially said more payment methods will come, but they have not said what those payment methods will be. Given they already have their own crypto, that will almost definitely be one of the options

Their original post says this:

Can I buy an account on a device that has no Play Services?

Not yet. We have plans to add more payment methods, but currently only offer Play Store in-app payments, which requires Play Services.

I do not think this is suspicious. They are starting where most of their users are, and whether we like it or not, is play services.

Their implementation with play services seems to be correct if it were done for privacy, though we can't ignore the fact it's still supporting Google.

The fact that they won’t even accept their “super private” shitcoin is a huge red flag here to be completely honest.

Nobody uses this. Signal also never processes a card. You have to transfer money from another crypto. That is not user friendly, and people would be pissed about this implementation too.

None of the other private app competitors have ever needed a phone number or payment and a lot of them let you self host too something signal is vehemently against.

The open source decentralized projects? Those a great, and important, but they are different. Signal is balancing security with convenience. Most average people would give up the moment it asked for an instance. Signal is easy to use, even for the tech illiterate. It works just like their other messaging apps, but only because it's centralized.

Its like using the Tor browser or something but you have to do a “zero knowledge proof” payment through google pay to access it. Would that make you feel comfortable? No? Then why are we acting like its ok for signal?

It's about where the users are. Most tor users are going to be on a desktop device, probably Linux, maybe Windows, then everything else. A very small percentage are going to be on Android. It would be very weird to be on a Linux device in a Tor browser being sent to Google services for payment. Signal is a mobile messaging app, which means basically two ecosystems. I assume they started with play services because of number of users and/or the fact Google already had ZKP payment as an option.

And ZKP isn't new, and it is real, and it's exactly how more things should be implemented.

Look at how many scammers use WhatsApp, and how much spam there is. Signal is clearly trying to make it tje best user experience they can without compromising security. This is just one step further, and it's only the first payment method, not the last.

And if it does support gift cards and prepaid cards?

This seems to me like a mild annoyance for someone using it legitimately, but a bigger barrier for scammers trying to get accounts in bulk. Sure they can get a lot of accounts still, but it'll no doubt be lessened.

Just like a quality architect wouldn’t want to build a house by making monkeys throw bricks in a pile, with the excuse that he goes after them to fix it.

If the result of the monkeys throwing bricks in a pile is indistinguishable from a team of builders, what does it matter how it got there. If the end result is a pile of garbage, of course it's unusable and a waste of resources. It's about the end result.

I don’t know how many more studies proving that LLMs are crap we’ll need before the slop stops.

Imagine if in the year 2000 someone said "how many studies does it take to show computers are slow before we stop wasting time on them". It's a technology. Whether you like it or not, this moment is the worst the technology will ever be. The studies you reference are about outdated technology

• someone with zero experience using AI to blindly create something barely functional, feeding in errors until it gets a working version. No checking for vulnerabilities, testing, error catching, no thought on architecture or scalability.
• someone carefully using AI in a controlled manner to create open source software. They spend days making sure that is reliable, scalable, secure, and that the project is quality.

You believe these two are them same? That both are equal slop? Quite frankly, I don't care if an AI made most of the code for an open source project as long as it is made well, and allows me to get away from awful proprietary alternatives. If the output of an AI is distinguishable from a quality programmer, idk how that is also slop.

What happens if AI gets good enough in like 5-10 years to (largely) no longer fit the created definition of slop? Do we revise the definition to be more restrictive, allow the content, or block AI content all together.

The answer to this question determines if it's really about the quality of the content or if it's more about the fact it is computer generated.

messy, generated code with little cohesion and only barely functional

Okay, you've described my code. Now what about the AI?

Only time will really tell. No Man's Sky did the hard work of turning around their awful launch, but it took years. It wasn't until last year they had over 80% positive reviews on Steam. In all that time, all those additions, and they never charged more, never added paid DLC's, it was all added to anyone that ever bought the game. No microtransactions, no loot boxes, no battle basses, just them making the game they originally promised.

I can't imagine Bungie doing the same thing for that long. I see them breaking and enshitifying their games for money. I don't think they have what it takes. But hey, I'd love for them to prove me wrong.

Of course Ed Sheeran is fine. He never has to work a day in his life if he didn't want to. I was talking about all the other jobs being provided to regular people that would lose some of their income. You cannot deny the actions of these celebrities influences the livelihood of those workong for them, and those that would work at events for them