Is it maybe possible that different people have different attack vectors they need to consider and backups are usually a weak-point for some of those people?

I understand it's frustrating when a (open source, forkable) application doesn't work the way you want it to, but you have to be able to see it from the other side as well.

Signal is signalling that chats are ephemeral and treating them as something else introduces security and privacy issues _in the way they are thinking about it_. It's very possible that's not an issue for you, but that doesn't make Signal wrong, is just make the two of you misaligned on why Signal exists. Signal is not for everyone and I think the team themselves make that pretty clear. Signal is for private and secure communications, and make no compromises that would lower either the privacy or the security, they rather compromise on other ends.

These kind of comments show the entitled parts of the internet, where open source software HAS to work a particular way otherwise ITS BROKEN AND HORRIBLE.

There are tradeoffs to everything. In this case, Signal made tradeoffs that you feel are wrong. You have a couple of choices, none of them include screaming that Signal should change their priorities based on your opionion: 1) continue using it anyways, start treating chats as ephemeral, 2) try to fork Signal and show us you can do it better or 3) dump Signal for a messenger that works the way you want it to.

In the end, there are multiple chat apps, use the right app for the right use case. Signal is definitely not a app for one-size-fits-them-all and it's pretty clear they are not trying to either.