The Suspicious Adoption of Signal
2026-05-21
---
For years, almost all of my text-based direct messages with other people used one of two systems: SMS and Facebook Messenger. I know SMS has its own set of problems, but I've come to despise Facebook Messenger, and I preferred SMS wherever I could. Many of my friends and family stubbornly refused to switch away from Messenger, though, so I had to live with it. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, there was a shift in late 2025.
It started when my sister-in-law, who lives in the UK, informed us that she wanted to leave Facebook Messenger and start using Signal instead. I like Signal: even though it requires a phone number to sign up, once you're on the platform you can operate completely independently of telephone networks, and your communications are much more secure. Yes, there are better systems out there, but it's already difficult enough to get anyone to try something new when so many communication apps exist already--and Signal is leagues better than Facebook. My wife was somewhat reluctant to make the switch, but I eagerly accepted.
A few months later, one of my local friend groups also decided to move their group chat from Facebook to Signal. The decision seems to have originated from one friend in particular, but everyone else readily accepted the proposal and left several years of chat history behind, seemingly without a second thought.
Since then, more and more of my friends--with many of whom I have never discussed Signal and have rarely discussed digital privacy and anonymity--are spontaneously announcing their intention to leave Messenger and move to Signal instead. I applaud their decision, and I hope it's the first link in a chain that leads to them taking back their digital autonomy. But at the same time, something about it seems odd to me.
It's not often that I see friends of mine adopting a new technology seemingly independently of each other, especially not at approximately the same time. When I do see it happen, like with Facebook, Twitter or Discord, it's usually because that technology has become trendy or popular for some reason. That popularity often comes from a dedicated marketing push from the creators of the technology, usually to boost platform activity, increase user engagement, and drive more value into the company. Those familiar with the concept of enshittification may recognize this phenomenon as the first step in vendor lock-in: once a critical mass of users switch solely or primarily to the ecosystem, the cost of leaving becomes prohibitively high, and the company can start to abuse the userbase.
I've seen this cycle of hype, adoption, entrapment, and value extraction enough times that I now distrust any rapid widespread adoption of a previously-unused technology. I honestly feel it even more strongly in Signal's case: in the wake of Edward Snowden's endorsement, I clearly remember the mainstream deriding Signal as a tool for conspiracy theorists or criminals. People saw no need to move away from establishment-approved messaging systems like Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp, and anyone who did was ridiculed was being paranoid or nefarious. I have no idea what caused people's attitudes to change, and the fact that it happened almost in unison makes me a little suspicious.
To be clear, I'm not saying Signal has the intention or even the capability to enshittify. I hate the fact that I have this kind of concern in the first place. But it's happened too often for me to ignore the signs, and it's happened too consistently for me to not be worried. I hope it doesn't happen: getting average people to leave Facebook is a big step in the right direction. But I'm hesitant to declare this a win entirely until some more time passes. I want to know for sure that Signal isn't going to turn into the next WhatsApp.
---
Up One Level
Home
[Last updated: 2026-05-22]