""The problem here is not that Signal 'chose' to run on AWS," Whittaker writes in a series of posts on Bluesky. "The problem is the concentration of power in the infrastructure space that means there isn't really another choice: the entire stack, practically speaking, is owned by 3-4 players." "The question isn't 'why does Signal use AWS?'" Whittaker writes. "It's to look at the infrastructural requirements of any global, real-time, mass comms platform and ask how it is that we got to a place where there's no realistic alternative to AWS and the other hyperscalers.""
""Running a low-latency platform for instant comms capable of carrying millions of concurrent audio/video calls requires a pre-built, planet-spanning network of compute, storage and edge presence that requires constant maintenance, significant electricity and persistent attention and monitoring," Whittaker says."
"She adds that Signal only "partly" runs on AWS and uses encryption to ensure Signal and AWS can't see your conversations."
Signal depends on major cloud providers because operating a global, low-latency messaging platform requires a planet-spanning network of compute, storage, and edge presence. The cloud infrastructure market is concentrated among a few hyperscalers — AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud — leaving limited viable alternatives for global scale without spending billions to build private infrastructure. The AWS outage disrupted many services across retail, gaming, smart devices, and communication platforms. Signal runs only partly on AWS and uses end-to-end encryption to ensure that neither Signal nor AWS can read user conversations. The concentration of infrastructure raises concerns about resilience and choice.
Read at The Verge
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]