I only read the signal link you posted, but the first link inside it complains that the signal server needs to know a users ip and that could be used to connect people and users. Ip addresses are required to send data. Ip obfuscation is insanely out of scope for a messenger.

The second link complains about sealed sender not failing closed which is true (or was true at the time) but also a reasonable compromise to prevent abuse and avoid it constantly failing and requiring new expirable tokens.

These are not reasons to not use or even not recommend signal. A person who is taking recommendations to increase their privacy should not be worried about those concerns.

Removing oneself from public records (or taking greater control over what surfaces in public records about oneself) is infinitely more important than expecting ip obfuscation or sealed sender from signal.

I am not making this reply to start an argument and will not engage in one. The point is to help readers understand that your concerns about signal are esoteric.

I think signal, proton and tuta are totally fine for most peoples threat model unless they feel they need the extra privacy.

If we want everyone to value privacy then we need to onboard them with easy to use and accessible services first and then they can take steps further if they want.

It’s difficult enough for getting people to switch from whatsapp to signal.

I don’t know how successful i’d be to get people to switch to simplex.

Is there a particular reason that you don’t recommend signal?

What alternatives would you recommend?