I don’t think they’re in trouble, they’re just talking about long term funding because it’s relevant. Can’t expand and get more funding without mentioning that you need it
Of the articles I saw about funding
one was by Signal, estimating future costs
one was by that Grayzone guy, misrepresenting where funds were from (said it was CIA lol), how much was being changed (title implied it was entirely CIA funded but it was a past, publicly documented investment by a government program)
They are currently in bit trouble as their funds are gone
I don’t think they’re in trouble, they’re just talking about long term funding because it’s relevant. Can’t expand and get more funding without mentioning that you need it
Of the articles I saw about funding
Source?
I think he’s talking about this, but it’s very clearly just a normal fundraising pitch that doesn’t even hint at a current issue with funding.
This was the article that raised a small stir. Some question the motivation and accuracy of some of the statements. The grabber quote is:
One of their own posts. No motivation to research a link for you
https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/
Making an extraordinary claim, and then saying you’re too lazy to provide a source weakens your claim
Research it yourself. This is a random lemmy comment and not a scientific paper.
https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/
We would like to raise more funds != our funds are gone.
Yes true there are some claims like CIA funding with little evidence