4 ms·

Is it a coincidence this came up on HN at the same time Telegram is getting dissed on HN? Can't help but think it was coordinated...which is sad for HN

by misrab 7y ago

anon9001 7y ago
People don't like Telegram because it's a centralized thing and maybe not trustworthy. I'm not sure if I'd trust the Telegram founders, and their commitment to open source seems questionable to me (no server, outdated clients). People advocate for Signal because it's arguably the least offensive of the available e2e options. Also the founder for Signal has a long history of doing good work in this area.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > People don't like Telegram because it's a centralized thing and maybe not trustworthy. Just like Signal. > I'm not sure if I'd trust the Telegram founders, and their commitment to open source seems questionable to me Meanwhile Moxie Marlinspike's opposition to free software is evident. You use the client he dictates or fuck off. There's closed source software that respects freedom more than Signal.
  - anon9001 7y ago
    https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android Can't I build and use this if I want? It looks very open, but I haven't tried building my own client.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Free software is not about being able to compile and code Moxie Marlinspike allows you to use. It's about freedom that he opposes: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217211165 https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco... Yes, Signal's licensing complies to the letter of how we define free software. But that is irrelevant as it violates the spirit.
grubb 7y ago
I doubt it. It seems to have been posted to HN at the same time as the blog post itself was posted. The timing of the blog post seems to have been based on when their paper went up on eprint [0]. As you can see they seem to have submitted the paper on Dec 6 (date on pdf) and it got posted to the eprint server on Dec 9 (which is the typical time frame). At the very least, zero reason for the MSR people involved in the paper to base their release date around Telegram. [0]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1416 https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1416

Is it a coincidence this came up on HN at the same time Telegram is getting dissed on HN? Can't help but think it was coordinated...which is sad for HN

by misrab 7y ago

Is it a coincidence this came up on HN at the same time Telegram is getting dissed on HN? Can't help but think it was coordinated...which is sad for HN

anon9001 7y ago

People don't like Telegram because it's a centralized thing and maybe not trustworthy. I'm not sure if I'd trust the Telegram founders, and their commitment to open source seems questionable to me (no server, outdated clients). People advocate for Signal because it's arguably the least offensive of the available e2e options. Also the founder for Signal has a long history of doing good work in this area.

anoncake 7y ago
> People don't like Telegram because it's a centralized thing and maybe not trustworthy. Just like Signal. > I'm not sure if I'd trust the Telegram founders, and their commitment to open source seems questionable to me Meanwhile Moxie Marlinspike's opposition to free software is evident. You use the client he dictates or fuck off. There's closed source software that respects freedom more than Signal.
- anon9001 7y ago
  https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android Can't I build and use this if I want? It looks very open, but I haven't tried building my own client.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Free software is not about being able to compile and code Moxie Marlinspike allows you to use. It's about freedom that he opposes: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217211165 https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco... Yes, Signal's licensing complies to the letter of how we define free software. But that is irrelevant as it violates the spirit.

grubb 7y ago

I doubt it. It seems to have been posted to HN at the same time as the blog post itself was posted. The timing of the blog post seems to have been based on when their paper went up on eprint [0]. As you can see they seem to have submitted the paper on Dec 6 (date on pdf) and it got posted to the eprint server on Dec 9 (which is the typical time frame). At the very least, zero reason for the MSR people involved in the paper to base their release date around Telegram. [0]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1416 https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1416