Canada

I understand your defense there, but It's pretty naive to assert that 'free' is a smart long term plan for security, especially entrusting that security to a privately run entity. History has taught most of us that a 'free' service makes the users the product, in this context it's through the monetization of their information, and signal will be far from the first messaging app to fall from grace. It's reliably predictable these days that platforms will experience leaks and breaches over an increasingly short life span, or simply betray trust when a free platform no longer aligns with profit margins. Maybe signal is the gold standard as you say, but assuming that it always will be is burying your head in the sand in the face of precedent. My stance is that it's worth the cost of investing in something that can be managed and monitored through more accountable and controlled means, somethign that has more reliable long term value due to less external pressure to generate a profit with the one resource it has, user data.

I'm sure one could say it's not better to have the government managing that data on every scale, even though they already have access to critical information directly via service distribution and law enforcement, or externally by purchasing from data vendors. I'd argue that they have less incentive to monetize it or weaponize it against users without a profit motive, beside which if you think your data is safe in the pockets of private interest, and that they aren't sharing your information constantly to exploit you, I have a digital bridge to sell you. In short, why is Signal the 'chosen' brand that can and will never do wrong? Why wait for that eventuality to do the thing we can do right now to avoid the risk? This context is arguably a national security issue, but even if this were exclusively a civilian product, I think the argument stands and is less of a bad idea than you claim.

I also support the development of public options for social media platforms, not only to reduce existing and novel harms inflicted on a daily basis by companies like Facebook, but to destabilize the oligopolies tech companies have been staking out to leverage against regulation for over a decade now. At some point that fight is coming, unless we're just meant to accept things like AI generated CSAM runnign rampant in the digital space from criminal neglect. We can't keep falling for this same business model.

Edit: Having investigated more of the structure of the ownership of Signal, I feel somewhat more hopeful about it as it currently operates. I'm aware of my cynicism in engaging with it, just trust that it's informed by a long and consistent history of failure and exploitation from digital properties and isn't simply imagined. I still forsee Signal being at increasing risk of sabotage and acquisition by private interests like Meta or Microsoft to eliminate it for being too good of a competitor, but I owe it a chance to resist those forces and continue it's stated mission. I do still believe that eventually this and other digital infratrusctures are going to require public development if they're not going to be natoialized or operated as utilities to prevent monopolization, so forgive me for attempting to take a long view here, but I do agree with your support of Signal in this case.