I'm really trying hard to see the point that's being made. Is it just the "high" salaries, or is there some other implication? The OP seems to be insinuating that Signal is a honeypot or something. I am going to need a lot more proof than, "hey, these guys work at a non-profit and they aren't underpaid!" Given that most tech jobs offer stock options in addition to normal salary, it would make sense that base salary should be higher at a non-profit (where stock options don't exist). Their salary structure also seems much flatter than other non-profits that I saw within the propublica link.

What am I missing here?

I don’t know the intricacies of signal as a company or if they support any bad actors or whatnot, but I do hate to see flack for non-profit leaders and employees getting paid competitive salaries. Like if people are actually worth that much in the economy, why not try to stack the team so they’re incentivized to do well? Especially in the shit pot that is America.

I would be curious to see the spread of overhead between salaries and fundraising, outreach, etc to actually get their product out there. Because if those are balanced in favor toward actually running the business, marketing it well, and fundraising, I’d say these people more than deserve these salaries.

And now let's focus on the only player who is a bit transparent instead of asking how are the others...

How does this compare to salaries for comparable positions at comparable for-profit companies?

It's kinda the point of donations that they can afford to hire people whose labor costs that much.

Ah another hitpiece on Signal huh? They must be doing a lot right.

“President of Signal getting paid less than a principal engineer” must be the take here.

The same argument applies to Wikipedia: it’s a blessing these people accept working for <1M. They could easily get a job for triple the salary elsewhere but choose to forfeit it for principles.

Guess adb never worked for a non-profit before.

Isn't 1M per year upper middle class in america now?

not my circus, not my monkeys

but them positions... as mr. cici famously quipped, that's alot of buffers

you really need a VP of eng and then a director of eng and further liaisons until you reach an actual engineer for a shop that has one product?

again, what do I care, spend it in good health

Just hire from the EU. It's cheaper and they are as competent. A lot more money will be left to hire more staff. I've already moved my signal donation to matrix.

The US is a money sink.

LMAO @ everyone who would have denied this was true groveling at the feet of the US government's spectacularly abd inexplicably generous Open Technology Fund after devoting 3000 comments to bashing what remains of Firefox for [checks notes] making the UI better so the community doesn't need to spend their time making sidebars and vertical tabs.. You guys are worms. Today I get to be the rock. 🥴

is the argument they shouldn't be paid money for their work? or maybe signal shouldn't be hiring at competitive salaries for highly skilled labor?

US and the West are 'managed' by elite psychopaths that don't give a shit about ordinary peoples 'privacy' or similar fancy tools for the wage-slaves. They have used these tools to try and break through specific nations/groups information defenses. ANYTHING sponsored by the US Oligarchy is either a part of local US control, or an attempt at reaching more people with rich-man propaganda in nations that defend themselves against US lies and color-revolutions..

What would be the downside if all companies were non-profit? At first sight, it sounds like a great idea.

addendum (to ensure someone gets hopping mad):

Unbearable: This was the last time i donated to signal. Next time i'll donate to some small foss-projects.

What a scam...

Hey guys I help orphans on a non profit, I'm a very good person. BTW I get paid 1M a year