Founder note

Why I built Signal

I built Signal because I am tired of being asked to trust articles that do not show their work.

The modern internet moves fast. Articles, posts, videos, and headlines are optimized for attention. They are often written to trigger reaction first and provide verification second.

That creates a problem: readers are constantly asked to trust institutions, personalities, outlets, and algorithms without being shown the evidence trail behind the claims.

Signal is not a truth oracle

Signal does not decide what is true. That would be the wrong product. A browser extension should not become an authority telling people what to believe.

Signal asks a narrower and more useful question: Does this article give visible reasons to trust it?

The core standard

Signal starts from low trust. Articles earn trust by making their claims verifiable. That means showing the documents, studies, reports, datasets, filings, transcripts, direct statements, and sources behind the claims that matter.

If an article says a letter exists but does not link the letter, Signal should not treat that as strong support. It may be attribution, but it is not a verification path for the reader.

Institutional trust is not enough. Show the evidence trail.

The transparency box

My hope is simple: if enough readers care about visible source support, publishers will be pressured into better behavior. No more lazy reporting that hides behind vague attribution. No more claims without receipts.

A good article should make it clear:

• what happened,
• where the information came from,
• which claims are supported by visible sources,
• what is interpretation or opinion,
• and what the reader can verify directly.

What Signal is for

Signal is for readers who want to slow down the internet just enough to ask: “What is being claimed, and what can I actually verify?”

That is the mission: not telling people what to believe, but making the support structure visible so people can make up their own minds.