• PrivateNoob
    link
    fedilink
    441 year ago

    Please Signal, use this opportunity. I really want to be on Signal AAAAH

  • @jherazob@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I dislike when they say in news clips that Signal represents the “current gold standard” for E2EE chats, it doesn’t, Signal is a helluva lot better than the commercial stuff that mines user data but there’s stuff like SimpleX Chat that doesn’t leak even metadata because it doesn’t have it.

    Still, this is a good thing, these megacorps have their iron grip on people because they have raised walls around their services making it painful for people to move to a different service, tearing down those walls can only help us all.

    • @shrugal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      A standard is also about broad adoption though, so I don’t think you can call SimpleX a standard yet.

    • Natanael
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      The standard is about the protocol, not every bit of the implementation. 3DH / X3DH and double ratchet, etc, are among the best for E2EE.

    • Syfrix
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Thanks for the tip about SimpleX, that looks interesting! I could never use Signal due to the way they operate and force you to rely on their and Google’s servers, actively blocking forks from their network. So much for FOSS…

      • Joe Cool
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        SimpleX is very neat. But it cannot do multiple devices unless you count shutting down, exporting database to new device replacing existing database as a sensible workflow. Using the database on two devices at once will break encryption and cause all sorts of weird problems.

    • Signal encryption can be taken out of the app and applied elsewhere, because it has been already done. SimpleX is nice but this is single app single implementation thing.

    • noodle (he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      only when the service specifically requests it and agrees to Whatsapp’s terms.

    • @penquin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      171 year ago

      I’ve read somewhere that iMessage wasn’t considered “big enough” to be considerate a monopoly. Which is bullshit if you ask me.

      • @Hirom@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Apple would still feel pressure to add interoperability if all other big players do. iMessage would have a competitive disadvantage if it’s the only one where users are unable to message the rest of the world.

          • @Hirom@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes. Still, it would be harder to not give a f if others walled gardens open up, and iMessage get disadvantaged by that wall.

            It’s as if iPhones were only able to make calls to other iPhones. Whereas all other devices where able to make calls to any device from any other vendor.