Not sure what people see in Signal. Having the client be open source without having the infrastructure decentralized is pretty pointless and just sets it up for failing again when the organization controlling the central infrastructure starts acting poorly.
But that being said, if you don't like Signal, just don't use it.
For some of us, "the organization controlling the central infrastructure" is _way_ more trustworthy to not start "acting poorly" than any of the alternatives.
For me, Apple comes a close second maybe, but lack of interoperability between iMessage and Android makes it a non starter amongst my friends/family. Even assuming some self-hosted version of an E2EE messaging service exists and I could convince enough of my family/friends to use it, I then become "the organization controlling the central infrastructure" who risks "acting poorly" due to incompetence or lack of resources to keep that self hoisted infrastructure running and secured.
Signal is not perfect. I don't agree with all of Moxie's choices (I'd strongly prefer it not to need to be linked to a real world phone number) and I strongly disagree with some of his choices (I get angry every time a "$name (someone in my contact list) has just joined Signal" notification arrives.
But it's better than the alternatives for me. And for enough of my friends/family that it's my most commonly used comms channel outside work.
To me the end result of this shifting landscape is something which has the attributes of Matrix. Matrix may have issues, but it's architecture and implementation is very resistant to bad actors.
You can fork the server code and the server instances of matrix servers and have it work with existing servers and clients. Without this capability it is a matter of time until bad actors kill it and everyone moves to the next thing. The problem is that "trust" is not enough.
You trusting Signal operators more than Whatsapp operators does not fix the problem that we cannot run these services on trust.
Of course they can stop being nice at any moment and start doing nefarious things. But having the client open source means that when this happens, you can stop using it without data leaks, and until that happens, you can also be sure about the security of your data and exchanges. As a plus, you can run your own server for you and a group of friends/collaborators/whatever, if you wish. In my eyes that's a vastly better alternative than (I would say most, but it would be inaccurate) all the non-decentralized non-federative alternatives. Plus, their whole mission being secure messaging (as opposed to a nice-to-have side feature) will probably make it harder to do a full turn soon, I guess. Even if Signal is on to something eventually, I believe it does no harm to take full advantage of it while we can, as long as we are aware of a potential turn of events.
But also, if I fork the server, where central control can be applied, nobody else will be on my server. The client is only half the problem, and the most insignificant part in my view. I would rather have proprietary client with decentralized infrastructure than the other way round if I could only choose one of the two.
He co-founded WhatsApp with Brian Action. They both wanted cash but also felt bad for selling out WhatsApp.
So Moxie founded Signal and Brain contributed. A new clean room project under a non-profit with an endowment. Made as what WhatsApp should of been if they didn't sell out.
And to the commenter below he work for Jack Dorsey as the head of cyber security. And Jack supported this project from the get go. They probably like each other. Go figure.
I think this comment is low effort, malicious, and unreasoned.
There is a meta play at worst. Like, someone showering you with 1 million dollars, no obligations and no strings attached, but having an ulterior motive. But, as in that scenario, it's in our hands to make the best use of what we are given.
But that being said, if you don't like Signal, just don't use it.