noman-land parent
It depends on your threat model. Since WhatsApp also requires a phone, Signal is the superior option and therefor a solution to using WhatsApp.
Also depends on where you're coming from. My friends use WhatsApp and I don't because of privacy considerations. If they switch to Signal, I might still not use it because they want my phone number (and their servers are centralized, owned by one organization). So for them, amongst each-other, it would be fine to all switch to Signal probably. But for those of us who have been avoiding it altogether so far, it might not change anything whatsoever.
> and their servers are centralized, owned by one organization
For what it's worth, everything about signal is open source and you can see how little data they can actually collect from you even if they wanted to. I believe they wouldn't be able to start collecting more data by modifying the server code, because the features which prevent them from receiving your info are built into the protocol and the client apps as well.
But since it is open source I suppose it would be possible to run your own server too... I suspect you just wouldn't be able to talk to the same people if you did (you'd effectively be running your own version of signal and that server would do the necessary coordination tasks for you and the other people using it)
I think in this day and age, it's "fine I guess" that it's set up that way: most services do that. But going forward, I think it's much better if services work in the way that e.g. email and IRC work: decentralized and federated. Nobody can know what will happen with Signal, or the USA in general. We'll be having this whole conversation about switching chat clients again in a couple of years. Whereas with a decentralized service, it doesn't matter. Anyone can build the software, anyone can run a server. Regardless of what happens to the people or organizations behind it.