Not sure if any of you have encountered the same resistance to using Signal. Some of my cousins refused to use Signal because they are already using “too many chat apps” (e.g. WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, WeChat, Telegram, Line, Snapchat, etc.). To them, Signal will just be another chat app among their numerous other chat apps. I understand that jumping between so many messaging apps imposes some kind of cognitive and maintenance burden. What are some ways to convince such people to use Signal?

  • EntropyPure@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I second this. I made an effort a while back to cut all Meta products out of my digital life. And this was the reasoning I gave to friends and family as well. Especially as I had no interest at all to use more than one messaging app.

    Worked pretty well.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      So because you have no interest in using more than one app you coerce others into installing yet another messaging app?

      That says something about you and it’s not positive…

      • animist
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s obviously not what they’re saying. Stop being so negative towards strangers on the Internet.

          • EntropyPure@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, that surely is a two way street, ain’t it?

            Others staying on WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger etc and expecting me to be available there is the same „forcing people to adapt to your choices“.

            Everyone has their choice, they can adapt another messenger or not. No hard feelings either way. Regarding my data and privacy the choice is mine, and if I don’t want my data in the hands of Meta and Alphabet that is my call to make. No matter how others deem that decision.

      • settinmoon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Coercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats, including threats to use force against that party.”

        Perhaps you should kindly explain why you think threats are involved in this case?