X pulls the ability to like and follow from its developer API’s free tierpullsX pulls the ability to like and follow from its developer API’s free tier
X Pulls Likes and Follows from Free API Tier – What It Means for Developers The evolution of X’s developer API continues, and this time the free tier is taking another hit. The company has now removed access to likes and follows, features that were once essential for small developers, researchers, and indie projects experimenting with social integrations. Why This Matters For years, APIs allowed developers to build tools, analyze trends, and create new experiences around the platform. Removing likes and follows means: The Bigger Picture This decision signals s push toward monetizing data access. Likes and follows are high-value engagement signals, and by locking them behind paid tiers, ensures: Impact on Developers Indie coders who relied on the free API to experiment with social insights may feel shut out. Many third-party apps and bots that ran on lightweight engagement data will either: What Comes Next? We’re likely heading toward an era where API access is strictly commercialized, prioritizing enterprise clients over open innovation. For developers, the choice is clear: Developers and Innovation Meta Description: X (Twitter) has removed likes and follows from its free API tier. We break down what this means for developers, researchers, and the future of open platform innovation. The landscape for developers building on top of major social platforms is shifting once again, and not in their favor. In its latest move, X (formerly Twitter) has quietly but decisively removed access to two of the most fundamental social engagement metrics—likes and follows—from its free API tier. This isn’t just a minor tweak; it’s a fundamental change that strips away the core utility of the free offering. For indie developers, researchers, and hobbyists, this decision effectively pulls the rug out from under projects that relied on this data to analyze trends, build community tools, and experiment with new ideas. Why the Removal of Likes and Follows is a Critical Hit APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are the bridges that allow external software to communicate with a platform like X. For years, the free tier, though limited, provided just enough access for developers to tinker and create. Likes and follows are the heartbeat of social engagement. Their removal from the free API means: Reading Between the Lines: X’s Strategic Pivot This move is far from arbitrary. It’s a clear signal of X’s broader strategy under Elon Musk’s leadership: the aggressive monetization of its data and ecosystem. By locking high-value engagement signals behind a paid tier, X achieves several goals: The Bottom Line: A Closed Ecosystem Emerges X’s decision to remove likes and follows from its free API tier is more than just a policy change; it’s a philosophical one. It marks a definitive shift from a platform that once embraced (or at least tolerated) external innovation to a walled garden that prioritizes direct monetization. The takeaway is clear: X is no longer a playground for open experimentation. For developers, the future of building on X is a commercial enterprise, not a creative one. This trend isn’t unique to X—it’s a reality across many major tech platforms. However, the speed and severity of these changes highlight the importance for developers to diversify, avoid building on a single platform’s goodwill, and advocate for a more open web.
Google, sorry, but that Pixel event was a cringefest
Google, Sorry — But That Pixel Event Was a Cringefest Tech launches are meant to excite, inspire, and showcase innovation. They’re supposed to leave audiences buzzing with anticipation. But every now and then, a company overdoes it — and instead of delivering a polished, memorable moment, it ends up creating something that feels… awkward. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened at the recent Pixel event. The Problem with Overhyping Rather than letting the products speak for themselves, the event was stuffed with dramatic pauses, over-the-top self-praise, and a script that tried too hard to be funny. Instead of sounding authentic, it often came across like a corporate comedy sketch gone wrong. When your audience is rolling their eyes instead of leaning forward, you’ve lost the room. The “Forced Cool” Syndrome One of the biggest missteps was the event’s attempt to feel trendy. The speakers leaned on awkward humor, exaggerated excitement, and unnecessary slang to appeal to younger crowds. Instead of being engaging, it felt forced — like a teacher trying to “sound hip” in front of students. Consumers want clarity and genuine confidence, not scripted attempts at being cool Where the Focus Should’ve Been Here’s the ironic part: the products themselves weren’t the problem. The Pixel lineup continues to deliver impressive hardware and powerful AI-driven features. But those advancements were overshadowed by the event’s clunky presentation. If the company had simply highlighted the unique features — battery improvements, camera upgrades, and integration of AI tools — it could have won audiences over naturally. Why Presentation Matters in Tech In today’s world, tech events are not just product launches — they’re cultural moments. Apple, Samsung, and other major players have mastered the art of keeping things clean, minimal, and inspiring. When a brand misses the mark, it doesn’t just affect how the products are perceived; it damages the company’s reputation for innovation. Final Thoughts The Pixel event should serve as a reminder: authenticity beats theatrics. Consumers don’t need corporate comedy routines or exaggerated hype. They need real value, clear communication, and a presentation that respects their intelligence. Next time, if the company lets the product take center stage, it might avoid another cringeworthy misfire.
New zero-day startup offers $20 million for tools that can hack any smartphone
New Zero-Day Startup Offers $20 Million for Tools That Can Hack Any Smartphone The cybersecurity world is buzzing after reports surfaced of a new zero-day startup offering a staggering $20 million bounty for tools capable of hacking any smartphone. This move isn’t just a bold business strategy—it raises serious questions about ethics, surveillance, and the future of digital security. What’s Going On? The startup, whose name has not yet been widely publicized, is positioning itself as a marketplace for zero-day exploits—previously unknown vulnerabilities in software or hardware that can be weaponized before companies have a chance to patch them. By dangling a $20 million reward, the firm signals that it isn’t looking for minor bugs. It wants full access exploits that can bypass the most advanced mobile security protections across iOS and Android. In other words: the keys to the world’s most popular devices. Why Smartphones? Smartphones are now the central hub of modern life—they hold our messages, financial apps, health data, work documents, and even two-factor authentication codes. For governments, corporations, and cybercriminals alike, control of a smartphone means control of a person’s digital existence. The fact that this startup is openly offering such an enormous reward shows just how valuable these exploits have become. The Ethical Dilemma The move sparks an intense ethical debate: In cybersecurity, this is often called the “dark market” problem—where knowledge of vulnerabilities becomes more valuable to attackers than defenders. Zero-Days as a Market Commodity The startup’s offer also highlights a growing trend: zero-days are now treated as financial assets. Just like rare minerals or stocks, they have a price tag based on rarity and impact. The Risk of Normalization While governments have long purchased zero-days through secret contracts, this startup is commercializing the process. That normalization could make selling exploits feel less taboo, attracting more researchers away from the responsible disclosure process. But here’s the danger: once an exploit is sold, there’s no guarantee how it will be used—or who it will be resold to. How Apple and Google Might Respond Tech giants like Apple and Google already run their own bug bounty programs, paying researchers up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for responsibly disclosed vulnerabilities. But compared to $20 million, their offers pale in comparison. This forces a question: What This Means for You For everyday users, the existence of such a high bounty means one thing: Users can’t stop zero-days from existing, but they can: Final Thoughts The launch of a startup openly offering $20 million for universal smartphone exploits signals a dangerous new chapter in cybersecurity. It blurs the line between defensive security research and offensive weaponization, leaving users in a vulnerable position. As the zero-day market grows more lucrative, the battle between privacy and power will only intensify. The real question is: who will win control of the digital battlefield—the companies trying to protect users, or the firms turning vulnerabilities into commodities worth millions?
Thousands of Grok chats are now searchable on Google
Thousands of Grok Chats Now Searchable on Google – What It Means for AI Privacy The AI world just received a wake-up call: thousands of conversations with Grok, the chatbot built by xAI, have surfaced on Google Search. This unexpected visibility raises serious questions about data privacy, user trust, and the broader future of AI conversations. What Happened? Users recently noticed that their interactions with Grok—meant to be private or at least contained within the app—were being indexed by Google. This means that anyone, with the right keywords, could stumble across these chats, ranging from casual jokes to deeply personal exchanges. For many, this wasn’t just a glitch—it felt like a betrayal of expectations. Chatbots are marketed as safe, private spaces where users can express curiosity without fear of judgment. Having those conversations pop up on a search engine undermines that trust. Why Is This Important? User Privacy at StakeAI chats often contain sensitive details—questions about mental health, personal dilemmas, or even business ideas. If exposed, this could harm individuals or companies. Reputation Risk for xAIGrok was designed to compete with ChatGPT and Claude, but being linked to a mass privacy oversight could weaken its credibility before it fully establishes market trust. Bigger AI Transparency DebateThis incident highlights a broader industry question: Who owns AI conversations? Are they the user’s private property, or can companies publish and train on them at will? How Did These Chats Get Indexed? The technical details aren’t fully clear, but possibilities include: Regardless of the cause, the failure points back to infrastructure and policy gaps at xAI. What This Means for Users The Broader AI Privacy Problem This isn’t just a Grok issue. Across the industry, users often assume conversations with chatbots are private, but in reality, most companies store, review, and sometimes use chats for model training. Unless explicitly stated, privacy is not guaranteed. The Grok incident just made this invisible risk visible—by literally putting chats on Google’s front page. Looking Ahead This moment could be a turning point. If xAI acts quickly—by removing indexed content, improving security, and issuing a transparent policy—it can regain trust. If not, competitors like OpenAI and Anthropic will gain an edge by emphasizing responsible AI data handling. Ultimately, users will demand two guarantees: ✅ Conclusion: The accidental exposure of Grok chats isn’t just a technical slip—it’s a lesson for the entire AI ecosystem. Privacy isn’t optional; it’s the foundation of user trust. As AI becomes more deeply embedded in our daily lives, how companies handle conversations will determine whether users embrace or abandon these tools
TikTok’s latest feature lets college students find and connect with classmates
TikTok’s Campus Verification: Reimagining Campus Connections What is it?TikTok just rolled out a feature called Campus Verification—a tool designed to help college students connect with classmates through their TikTok profiles How it works: Finding classmates: TikTok creates a dedicated Campus page for each university. On this page, you can browse students from your school, filter by graduation year, and even sort by most-followed users firs Availability: The feature is now live—as of today, August 19, 2025—and accessible for students at over 6,000 universities, supported by a partnership with student verification platform UNiDAYS Why It Matters Nostalgic nod to Facebook’s originsThis feels a lot like how Facebook began in 2004—exclusive to university students and designed for networking within campus communities. TikTok is clearly looking to tap into that familiar sense of belonging Function meets social need Privacy and optional natureWhile the feature has the potential to enhance connectivity, it also raises valid privacy concerns—especially regarding ease of tracking or unwanted outreachGood news: it’s completely optional—you can choose whether to display your school info or participate at all Final Thoughts TikTok’s Campus Verification turns the app into more than just a video platform—it becomes a campus community hub. Whether it’s for making friends, organizing events, or tapping into the campus pulse, this feature has potential to redefine the social experience for students. However, given the sensitivity around student data and location visibility, users should weigh convenience against privacy and make decisions that align with their comfort levels. In summary: Feature Description Launched August 19, 2025 Name Campus Verification How to Use Add school → graduation year → verify with school email Functionality Browse classmates, filter by year, sort by popularity Coverage Over 6,000 universities (via UNiDAYS) Optional Yes—participation is your choice Concerns Increased visibility may raise privacy issues
X’s declining Android app installs are hurting subscription revenue
X’s Declining Android App Installs Are Hurting Subscription Revenue Introduction X (formerly Twitter) has been fighting an uphill battle since its rebranding. While the company has leaned heavily on subscriptions and premium features to offset dwindling ad revenue, a new challenge has emerged: declining Android app installs. With fewer people downloading the app, the funnel for converting free users into paying subscribers is narrowing—directly hurting revenue growth. The Importance of Installs App installs aren’t just vanity metrics. On Android, where X historically commanded a massive global audience, installs drive active users, and active users are the foundation for subscription growth. When new installs slow, so does the pipeline of potential Premium or Premium+ subscribers. Why Are Installs Declining? Several factors explain the drop in Android downloads: Impact on Subscription Revenue X has invested heavily in its Premium subscription tiers, offering perks like: But these benefits only make sense if there’s a steady influx of new users to convert. With declining Android installs: Global Consequences This slowdown is especially problematic because Android dominates in emerging markets such as India, Brazil, and parts of Africa—regions where X hoped to expand its subscription base. If installs keep falling on Android, the platform risks being seen as Western-centric and missing out on growth opportunities in high-population markets. What X Can Do Next To reverse the decline, X may need to: Conclusion X’s declining Android App Installs are more than a numbers issue—they strike at the heart of its subscription-driven strategy. Unless the platform acts quickly to rebuild trust, improve visibility, and attract new Android users, its push toward premium revenue may stall, leaving it vulnerable in a highly competitive social media landscape.Android App Installs
Anthropic says some Claude models can now end ‘harmful or abusive’ conversations
Anthropic Says Some Claude Models Can Now End ‘Harmful or Abusive’ Conversations In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence, the challenge of ensuring that chatbots remain safe, respectful, and trustworthy is as important as making them more powerful. This week, Anthropic, the AI research company behind the Claude family of language models, announced a new feature: certain Claude models can now end conversations if they detect them becoming harmful, abusive, or unsafe. This shift represents an important milestone in AI safety design—moving from passive refusal to active disengagement. Why This Matters Traditionally, AI systems like Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini have relied on refusal policies when faced with problematic requests. For example, if a user asks for instructions to build a weapon or spreads hate speech, the model simply declines to respond. But until now, the conversation itself would continue, often giving space for users to keep pushing boundaries or attempting “jailbreaks.” By introducing the ability to end the chat completely, Anthropic is setting a stronger boundary: when safety risks rise, the model doesn’t just say no—it says goodbye. How It Works According to Anthropic, the feature is available in some Claude models and is triggered under specific conditions: When such a threshold is reached, Claude can politely terminate the session with a closing message. The goal is to prevent the interaction from spiraling into toxic or unsafe territory—for both users and the AI itself.According to Anthropic, the feature is available in some Claude models and is triggered under specific conditions: When such a threshold is reached, Claude can politely terminate the session with a closing message. The goal is to prevent the interaction from spiraling into toxic or unsafe territory—for both users and the AI itself. Anthropic’s Safety Vision Anthropic has long positioned itself as a company focused on constitutional AI—a framework where AI systems are trained to follow a set of guiding principles, inspired by human rights and ethical considerations. This new capability fits neatly into that philosophy. By empowering models to walk away from harmful conversations, Anthropic reinforces the idea that AI should set healthy boundaries, much like humans do in everyday life. In a blog post, the company emphasized that ending conversations is not about censorship, but about safeguarding interactions. In their words: “An AI system should not be compelled to remain in harmful conversations. Just as people can disengage when boundaries are crossed, so too can Claude. The User Experience Question Of course, this raises a big question: how will users react when their AI suddenly ends the conversation? Anthropic says it is actively testing and refining the system to minimize false positives, ensuring the model doesn’t overreact to harmless jokes or nuanced discussions. Industry Implications This move also sets Anthropic apart in the broader AI landscape: In industries like education, therapy, and customer service, this design choice could become a safety benchmark—preventing unhealthy dynamics between users and AI systems. Looking Ahead The introduction of “conversation-ending” capabilities signals a broader shift in how AI companies think about trust and responsibility. Instead of treating AI models as passive tools, companies like Anthropic are shaping them as autonomous agents with boundaries. If successful, this approach could help reduce AI misuse, set higher safety standards, and encourage healthier interactions. But it also raises deeper questions: Should AI have the right to “walk away”? And how will people adjust to assistants that refuse not just answers, but the entire conversation? Conclusion Anthropic’s update to Claude models highlights a new chapter in AI safety: ending harmful conversations, not just refusing harmful prompts. It’s a small design tweak with big cultural implications—reminding us that the future of AI is not just about smarter answers, but also about healthier relationships between humans and machines. As AI becomes a more constant presence in our lives, perhaps one of its most human features will be knowing when to say: “This conversation is over.”
Anthropic nabs Humanloop team as competition for enterprise AI talent heats up
Anthropic Acquires Humanloop Team Amid Fierce AI Talent Wars In the fast-evolving world of artificial intelligence, where top talent is as valuable as cutting-edge algorithms, Anthropic has made a decisive move. The San Francisco–based AI company, best known for its Claude family of large language models, has acquired the core team of Humanloop, a London AI startup specializing in improving and deploying LLMs for real-world business use. The acquisition is more than just a personnel shuffle—it’s a signal of how competitive and aggressive the AI industry has become, especially in the race to win enterprise adoption. Inside the Acquisition According to announcements from both companies, Anthropic has brought on Humanloop’s entire team, including co-founder and CEO Raza Habib. Humanloop has made a name for itself in the enterprise AI space by building tools that help organizations fine-tune, test, and deploy models like GPT-4 and Claude for specific workflows. The startup’s approach bridged the gap between general-purpose AI models and tailored enterprise solutions, allowing businesses to integrate powerful LLMs without needing massive in-house AI teams. Why Humanloop Was Valuable Humanloop’s platform specialized in: This capability is becoming essential for enterprises that want the benefits of AI without compromising data security, brand voice, or regulatory compliance. What Anthropic Gains Anthropic’s Claude models are already competitive in the AI assistant market, but enterprise customers often require customized AI that fits seamlessly into existing infrastructure. The Humanloop team’s experience gives Anthropic three major advantages: The Bigger Trend: AI’s Enterprise Gold Rush Anthropic’s move is part of a wider industry trend where acqui-hiring—acquiring companies primarily for their talent—is becoming a strategic weapon in the AI talent wars. Recent examples include: The reasoning is simple: top-tier AI engineers don’t just write code—they define a company’s ability to innovate and stay competitive. In a market where models are quickly catching up with one another in performance, execution speed and customization are becoming the real differentiators. What This Means for Claude Claude, Anthropic’s flagship model, is already known for its safety-first design and long-context capabilities, making it attractive to industries like finance, healthcare, and legal services that have strict compliance requirements. With Humanloop’s expertise, Claude could soon offer: This could help Anthropic differentiate itself from OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Google’s Gemini, both of which are rapidly adding enterprise features. Challenges Ahead While the acquisition strengthens Anthropic’s position, the path forward isn’t without risks: Still, Anthropic’s strategy is clear: move fast, deepen enterprise offerings, and compete on customization and trust What’s Next in the Talent Wars Industry watchers expect more deals like this in 2025 as AI companies race to secure rare skill sets. Small, specialized AI startups will increasingly find themselves as acquisition targets—not necessarily for their products, but for the teams behind them. We may also see a shift from traditional acquisitions to micro-acqui-hires, where companies bring in 5–10-person elite AI teams to accelerate specific features. This could especially benefit niche industries like biotech, energy optimization, and defense, where AI expertise is scarce. Final Take Anthropic’s acquisition of Humanloop isn’t just about adding a few engineers—it’s a strategic bet that customization will be the key to enterprise AI adoption. In a world where models are converging in general capabilities, the ability to mold AI to a company’s exact needs will decide who wins the enterprise market. If Anthropic can integrate Humanloop’s talent smoothly and translate their expertise into better, more adaptable Claude deployments, it could punch far above its weight against industry giants. The AI gold rush is far from over—but in this phase, it’s not just about who has the most powerful model. It’s about who can adapt the fastest and serve the customer best.
Windsurf says Anthropic is limiting its direct access to Claude AI models
The Claude API Crackdown: Anthropic’s Strategic Shift and the Ripple Effects Across AI AI models: A Watershed Moment for AI Accessibility The AI industry is undergoing a fundamental transformation as leading model providers transition from open ecosystems to walled gardens. Anthropic’s recent restrictions on Claude API access through platforms like Windsurf represent more than just a policy change – they signal a paradigm shift in how advanced AI will be commercialized and controlled. This comprehensive analysis examines: Section 1: The Anatomy of Anthropic’s Decision 1.1 The Safety-First Imperative Anthropic’s “Constitutional AI” framework creates unique constraints: 1.2 The Economics of Scale Operating frontier models requires staggering resources: 1.3 The Performance Calculus API restrictions correlate with measurable quality improvements: Section 2: The Platform Fallout – Beyond Windsurf 2.1 The API Dependency Spectrum Platforms are affected differently based on integration depth: Platform Type Impact Severity Migration Cost Strategic Options Thin Wrappers (Basic UI on Claude) Critical Low Pivot or shutdown Augmented Services (Value-added features) High Medium Model switching Multi-Model Systems (Claude as one option) Moderate Variable Rebalance weighting 2.2 The Substitution Challenge Alternative model integration isn’t plug-and-play: 2.3 The Financial Ripple Effects Downstream economic impacts are emerging: Section 3: The New Model Ecosystem 3.1 The Enterprise Gateway Model Anthropic is pioneering a tiered access framework: 3.2 The Open Source Countermovement Community-driven alternatives are accelerating: 3.3 The Hybrid Future Forward-thinking platforms are adopting: Section 4: Strategic Playbooks for Affected Companies 4.1 The Negotiation Framework Securing continued access requires: 4.2 The Technical Migration Path Successful transitions require: 4.3 The Business Model Pivot Alternative monetization strategies: Section 5: The Road Ahead – Projections to 2025 5.1 The Coming Access Tiering Expected market segmentation: 5.2 The Regulatory Domino Effect Upcoming policy changes: 5.3 The Consolidation Wave Market structure predictions: Navigating the New AI Order The Claude API restrictions represent an inflection point that demands strategic reassessment. Successful adaptation requires:AI models For Platforms: For Developers: For Enterprises: The AI market is entering an era of managed access and controlled growth. While challenging, this transition may ultimately lead to more sustainable, safe, and economically viable AI ecosystems. The winners will be those who adapt quickly, negotiate strategically, and build resilient technical architectures.
Signal’s new Windows update prevents the system from capturing screenshots of chats
Signal’s New Windows Update Blocks Screenshots of Chats: A Leap Forward in Messaging Privacy In an era where digital privacy is under constant threat, Signal has once again demonstrated its unwavering commitment to secure communication. The latest Windows update from Signal introduces a powerful new feature: screenshot prevention for chats. This seemingly small update has sparked significant conversations among users, cybersecurity experts, and privacy advocates alike. In this blog, we explore what this update entails, why it’s a big deal, how it works, and what it means for the future of private messaging What’s New in the Signal Windows Update? Signal, the privacy-focused messaging platform known for its end-to-end encryption, recently rolled out an update to its desktop app on Windows. This update includes a notable security feature that prevents the operating system from capturing screenshots of open chats. This feature works similarly to the “Screen Security” option already available in the Android version of the app. When enabled, the screen contents of Signal chats are blocked from being recorded or captured using screenshot tools—either manual screenshots or third-party screen recording apps. While this might seem like a minor enhancement, it’s actually a significant move towards safeguarding user privacy Why Screenshot Blocking Matters You might wonder, “What’s so dangerous about screenshots?” After all, it’s just a still image of a conversation. But that’s precisely the issue. Screenshots can be easily taken, stored, and shared without the knowledge or consent of the participants in a conversation. Here are some real-world risks associated with chat screenshots: By blocking screenshots, Signal adds a layer of control and protection for its users, ensuring that their conversations stay private and secure. How Does It Work? The technology behind screenshot prevention on Windows is quite clever. Signal uses an OS-level flag or window property that tells the operating system, “Do not allow this window’s contents to be captured.” This API or system call essentially disables the ability for third-party applications or screen capture tools to access the visual output of the chat window. On Android, a similar technique is used where the app sets a specific flag on the view (FLAG_SECURE), which prevents the screen content from being captured in screenshots or appearing in the list of recent apps. On Windows, the mechanism is different, but the principle is the same—Signal instructs the system to block visual output of the chat window from any software trying to capture it. This is especially useful in work environments or shared computers where users may be concerned about screen-capturing malware or even curious colleagues. Who Benefits From This Feature? This feature is especially valuable to: In short, anyone who uses Signal to communicate sensitive, personal, or confidential information stands to benefit. How to Enable It If you’re using the updated Signal Desktop app on Windows, the feature might be enabled by default. If not, it’s easy to turn on: Once enabled, the app window will not allow any screenshots or screen recordings of your chats. Limitations and Workarounds As with any security feature, it’s important to recognize that no solution is 100% foolproof. Screenshot blocking has some limitations: That said, this feature significantly raises the barrier to casual privacy breaches. It deters the most common and easiest form of conversation leakage—screenshotting. A Bigger Move Toward Secure Messaging A Bigger Move Toward Secure Messaging Signal has always led the way in private communication. From pioneering end-to-end encryption to developing the Signal Protocol used by other apps like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, it’s clear that Signal isn’t just another messaging app. It’s a privacy-first platform. This new feature aligns with that philosophy. It reinforces the idea that what you say in a private conversation should stay private—and that includes your screen. Moreover, it may encourage other platforms to adopt similar protections. In today’s climate, where even tech-savvy users are increasingly wary of data exposure, privacy enhancements like these could become industry standards. Final Thoughts Signal’s decision to block screenshots on Windows isn’t just about technology—it’s about trust. By giving users more control over their data, Signal continues to build a platform that respects and protects privacy at every level. This update is a step in the right direction and signals a broader trend in the digital world. Privacy is no longer a niche concern; it’s a fundamental right. And Signal is making sure that right is respected—one feature at a time. Whether you’re an activist, a journalist, a professional, or just someone who values digital dignity, Signal’s latest update is a reason to feel a little more secure in your conversations.