Oh no. I'm fine with installation. What with I'm not fine it's requirement to access some websites to load an app, dependence from DNS in inner links, inability to proxy it through overlay networks, protection from spamming the network. Lack of everything what could make it deserve to be named P2P app. I just don't want to see it placed in the same category with BitTorrent, I2P or RetroShare.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
19 points (82.8% liked)
Privacy
32173 readers
1053 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
if "trust" in the static files from a url is a concern, (which is very reasonable), you can easily host your own instance.
i think it fits squarely as a "P2P app". over a hotspot, you can practically send messages offline. im not sure what other qualifiers are needed.
i dont think its ready to be compared to other tools yet. but i would be aiming to make it comparable to something like signal... but it'll take a while to get there.
Yayy, another chat app! 🙄