this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
theNetherlands
1915 readers
6 users here now
Welkom op c/theNetherlands! Voor het delen van alles gerelateerd aan Nederland: nieuws, sport, humor, cultuur en vragen.
Welcome to c/theNetherlands! For sharing anything related to the Netherlands: news, sports, humor, culture and questions.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would go into the specific points, but really none of this invalidates my main point that Signal is a marked step forward, seems to be having some success, and that undermining that success is therefore misguided. Heck, Signal might be a stepping stone to people using whatever decentralised system you prefer! I was around in WhatsApp's early days, and never adopted it, because the picture was never as rosy as Signal's. Of course, it did become significantly worse when Facebook acquired it, but that happens to be exactly the thing that can't easily happen to Signal.
I will say that I agree that nothing is eternal, but that's no reason to encourage people to stay on WhatsApp (which is what disparaging Signal use will actually achieve).
My point was that you'll be communicating with people each of whom chose their own service poviders, and thus you're also trusting those.
We are going circles but I will repeat it: Signal isn't immutably better than WhatsApp, it only happens to be more politically-aligned with your beliefs (which we share in large parts, to be fair!) at this very instant (and we saw that this can change without notice).
My threshold for justifying a mass-exodus out of a popular messaging system is that 1- it offers non-revocable privacy and security guarantees and 2-, that it doesn't lock its users in a single vendor/single service provider. Those two things combined are important, because they would finally give the chance of breaking away from the never-ending cycle of "enshittification → exodus → unsatisfactory explorations → painful rebuild(s) → monopoly consolidation → user captivity → enshittification". Anything else is a slight variation around the current disappointing status-quo. I don't think it's too far-fetched, and we really deserve this "luxury" for something as fundamental as instant messaging. I can only hope that you understand why I'm not willing to compromise on that.
I'm also willing to bet that, with the rumbling going on in the USA at the moment, Signal might sooner or later become a target of/re-align itself with the new "administration". Maybe then you will sense more of that captivity I keep rambling about?
The worst thing the other server can do is drop your messages silently, which you will absolutely come to know. Think of XMPP with end-to-end encryption as essentially encrypted email. "What if I can't trust the other server at @bizarre_email_domain.org? Whatever."
I think you're right that we are going in circles now, so let's end it here :) Thanks for the discussion!
And thanks to you as well for the cordial discussion! I'm hopeful that bystanders got an interesting read out of it :-)
As of me, the "worst" I would wish upon you is to adventure into XMPP, via an easy-entry app like quicksy.im (android) or monal-im.org (iOS) and see for yourself that you can get something as secure and featured as Signal, without the captivity and monopolistic abuses.
Oh no worries, I have used XMPP (though admittedly in the far past) and am on Matrix as we speak.
XMPP had a kind of renaissance in the recent years (while Matrix only stagnated, and recently turned open-core, but that's besides the point), maybe time to give it a new look? :-)