In the blog posts I read where the author, a security engineer, audited and/or reported vulnerabilities with two E2EE chat protocols commonly recommended as Signal alternatives--Matrix and XMPP--both had implemented half-baked solutions or refused to solve the issue at all in some regards, and both had evangelists that gave childish responses (the Matrix dev even admitted being aware of the olm vulnerability and refused to fix it for years). Not that Signal cultists are any better and not negating the legitimate security issues with the Signal platform, but Signal is still a decent platform for most people's threat model, though it would be nice if there was an alternative that could compete with Signal to recommend to most people instead. If you care about metadata resistance and your threat model involves high stakes if your assets are compromised, the blog author suggests Tor-based solutions such as Cwtch and Ricochet Refresh.
It doesn't have to be "real weird shit" though for it to be a problem, coordinating about protests or other political activism on Signal is sketchy because of the phone number requirement, and just having your phone number be associated with another suspect phone number from inferred conversations is enough to potentially get you in trouble. Or if some national anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ law happens and they put serious effort into enforcing it, activity on Signal, which is not anonymous, could be used against you and people you had conversations with. Yet I've seen multiple groups who shouldn't be using Signal use it anyway because it keeps getting recommended. SimpleX and Cwtch have weaknesses also, but both of them take anonymity more seriously than Signal does.
I would encourage you to think critically about the nonsense being shared here. Do some research and read about people who actually know things about security and you'll find a common pattern: basically all of them hold Signal up as a gold standard in privacy and security.