I think this is the core part where Signal decides what it wants to really be:
* A messenger for activists, whistleblowers and other people that might be hunted by governments.
* A decently secure messenger for everyone that provides an alternative to WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and other major corporate platforms.
Because in these cases those two goals are opposite - IME is the most fundamental way how people interact with a messaging app. Switchin it is very hard because users have muscle memory connected to an IME and IMEs vary wildly in their language support and typing experience,. Messing with it (blocking it, forcing people to use another) will make a lot of people refuse to use the app. Not messing with it will make activists mad and result in bunch of "Signal is crap for proper security" posts.
They need to choose. And sitting on both goalposts is the worst option here.
It doesn't have to force it. One of the proposed things has been making one of the on-boarding prompts give on-boarding prompts and point this out to the user - giving people who expect security of the first level based on how it has been presented to them the chance to realize they don't have it, and react.
* A messenger for activists, whistleblowers and other people that might be hunted by governments.
* A decently secure messenger for everyone that provides an alternative to WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and other major corporate platforms.
Because in these cases those two goals are opposite - IME is the most fundamental way how people interact with a messaging app. Switchin it is very hard because users have muscle memory connected to an IME and IMEs vary wildly in their language support and typing experience,. Messing with it (blocking it, forcing people to use another) will make a lot of people refuse to use the app. Not messing with it will make activists mad and result in bunch of "Signal is crap for proper security" posts.
They need to choose. And sitting on both goalposts is the worst option here.