Because it isn't a question of individual choice.

I use Signal as much as possible, but here in Brazil it seems WhatsApp/Facebook has some deal with all the cellular operators by which the a) give customers "unlimited WhatsApp usage" that doesn't count against their 3 or 5 GB/month internet usage quotas, and b) give WhatsApp traffic preference when their networks are congested, meaning that sometimes Signal messages don't get delivered immediately but WhatsApp messages do. Really.

The "unlimited WhatsApp usage" as part of a basic plan alone means that Signal doesn't have a chance. Most people hit their quota limits during a typical month, and that means no more Signal messages/calls.

I'm sure it's similar in many other countries.

I worked at WhatsApp until 2019 and worked on technical stuff for the WhatsApp part of the zero-rating deals. Part A is definitely part of that, but AFAIK, your part B, network prioritization was never part of the deal.

Facebook does a lot of network peering though, and has PoPs in Brazil, so there's some potential that Signal goes over transit and WhatsApp goes over peering, but peering is not (or was not, when I was there) a requirement for zero rating. I think AWS may peer in Brazil as well?

WhatsApp likely works better than Signal on congested networks because of the protocol design, timeout length, and DNS fallbacks. These are things Signal could improve on. If your network is so congested that packets are delayed 30-60 seconds and DNS always times out, I expect WhatsApp to still work, but not a whole lot else. That's solvable for other services, but it takes time and determination and accepting the use case as valid and important. Of course, all that and WhatsApp was still inaccessible for a significant amount of time today.

Yes, plus it's pointless trying to get my family to use Signal - they don't want to download an additional app to talk to me.

They will have to if you delete your WA account.

The other option for them would be not to talk to GP at all.

This is more likely imo

Someone who can't spend 2 minutes to install a free private messaging app to maintain a social or personal connection to me isn't someone who gives a shit about me (and whom I'm presumably better off without).

Friends don't ask friends to submit to Facebook surveillance.

Would you be willing to install "a free private messaging app", Facebook Messenger, in order to "maintain a social or personal connection" to a person in your family?

Facebook messenger is not private.

So I gather you would refuse.

Given your refusal, would you think that, for that person in your family, you would fit the description of "someone who can't spend 2 minutes to install a free [..] messaging app to maintain a social or personal connection"?

Would you think that that person in your family would be presumably better off without you?

additionally, android builds are also often shipped by OEMs to randomly kill apps running in the background, with an exception for whatsapp but not other messaging apps like signal and telegram

The problem here is "other people".

I'd like to use irc as a messaging platform, but almost noone uses it anymore. If all your friends and family use only whatsapp, you have no choice.

and irc folks have splintered now to irc4ever hardcore, matrix preachers, mastodon tooters, other small social media jesuses and so on. oh, and discord lunatics. Can't wait for that walled garden to crash.

Good thing is that there are choices.

Bad thing about the good thing is that there are too many and we're stretching thin.

The general public do not give a shit about any of these. Wouldn't matter if there was only one.

What are the benefits of using irc as a messaging platform?

Other than the other users? I haven't figured it out, as other services offer better experiences. I guess it is the openess around irc.

That you're not tied to a single provider/client/platform... Also for some people it's just a nicer, more on point, communication platform. But for most people the barriers are greater than the benefits, so it's not a viable solution in today's world.

Many different clients, bots, no registration, easy to join/leave channels, easy to automate stuff,...

How on earth is government intervention the answer to Facebook being down? How are these two things even related? What a bizarre place we’ve arrived at.

Supposing FB and Whatsapp are splintered when FB goes down then people will still be able to use Whatsapp. When Whatsapp goes down people will still be able to use FB.

Both my mobile and ISP have gone down over the years many times more than fb, and often for much longer (last year it was a solid week), and I live in one of the most connected points on the west coast.

> the billionth reason not to use whatsapp as the de facto phone and text messaging platform

Serious question, what do you suggest the general population should use? Something that still works on a 5-year old Android phone with no software updates in the last 2-3 years (at least), all free of charge.

Why is the attitude so prevalent in 2021 that the market is always the answer and regulation never is?

Every high-functioning society is built on a foundation of sensible and fair regulation. Over the past 30 years, we've seen a rise in truly transformative web technologies, and mostly we've left it up to the market to see what would happen. And what has happened has not been universally good. When will we decide it's time to regulate these tech firms?