19 ms·

Both are asynchronous messengers. Signal: + protects metadata + protects the content (e2e encryption) - is not anonymous - is not resilient against regulations

Both are asynchronous messengers. Signal: + protects metadata + protects the content (e2e encryption) - is not anonymous - is not resilient against regulations Matrix: - does not protect metadata + protects the content (e2e encryption) + is anonymous + is maybe, potentially resilient against regulations (federated, not centralized architecture)

Arathorn 6y ago
You could argue that Matrix does protect metadata if you run your own server - and in extremis, one way of running your own server and protect metadata is to go P2P and embed it into your client (which is one thing we're currently working on). That said, there are some other pretty big differences between Matrix & Signal; the biggest one is probably that Matrix is an open standard and open network, encouraging 3rd party clients, servers, bridges, bots etc - optimising both for freedom/liberty as well as encryption. Signal optimises for privacy at all costs and doesn't allow 3rd party clients or services. See https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom for more.
- tptacek 6y ago
  That's not really a reasonable argument. Signal makes a profound UX tradeoff to protect metadata by not requiring servers to store it in the first place: it drafts off people's phone contact lists, and thus everyone who uses it needs to be identified by a phone number. Matrix doesn't have any special way of avoiding that tradeoff. It just takes the other end of the trade: Matrix servers are exposed to valuable metadata, so that people can use whatever identifier they want. And, of course, the flip side of Matrix's "freedom and liberty" federalized design is that it is May 7, 2020, and the project is just now announcing E2E by default for private conversations. This is exactly why, years ago, Moxie Marlinspike wrote his post arguing about the downsides of federalization. It sure looks like his predictions were borne out! I think both of these projects are valid and important, and that they have different goals and audiences, and we do people a disservice when we pretend like they're in any kind of serious competition. Matrix is what you'd replace an IRC server with. Signal is what you'd tell an immigration lawyer to use for messaging.
  - chrisweekly 6y ago
    Thank you for this illuminating comment; it was helpful and imho exemplary.
  - fiter 6y ago
    I believe you consider phone numbers pseudo-anonymous identifiers, which I believe Matrix names also qualify as. Is there any technical reason why Matrix servers would have to store contact lists? Both Signal and Matrix would have store message metadata to deliver it. I searched for what the significant difference is, but could not come up with a good document to read.
    - badrabbit 6y ago
      Phone numbers are the most identifying piece of information. They are precise identifiers not pseudo-anonymous. A non-burner phone can easily be converted to a complete background check on the person for under $50 ,for a higher price it can be converted to current realtime physical address.
      - ChristianBundy 6y ago
        > easily be converted Could you link to a reputable resource for this? I've always imagined that phone number background checks were mostly scams with a bit of public information sprinkled on top. I'd be very surprised to learn that I could purchase a burner phone, give you the phone number, and have you be able to tell me my address and criminal history.
        fwip 6y ago
        They just said "non-burner phone."
        snazz 6y ago
        For non-burner phones, just Google the phone number---you'll probably get a sketchy "look this person up for $XX.YY" telephone directory page that will contain their full name and age, if not their address.
- mirimir 6y ago
  But there's no anonymity in Matrix by default, right? Can Matrix servers be run as Tor onion services?
  - ptman 6y ago
    They can, but the tor servers cannot federate with non-tor -servers (how would the non-tor -servers connect to the tor-servers?)
    - mirimir 6y ago
      One can run reverse Tor to clearnet proxies that are both anonymous and ~disposable. That is, knowing the proxy IP doesn't compromise the Tor onion server, and the proxy retains no PII, and can be readily replaced if taken down.
- mekster 6y ago
  I've tried Matrix. The principle sounds great but the lack of quality client just put me off on whichever platforms I've tried with most popular clients. The interface is just complicated for average people and the translations were half done and this will scare people off if I recommend for cross company chat. The server side may be great but it needs some work to have simple and elegant client on desktop and mobile clients. Currently I use Mattermost and it seems to be doing ok but this has no built-in support for audio and video.
  - holler 6y ago
    Personally I think this is a fundamental problem with matrix and why it will always only appeal to a certain segment of users. For those users, namely tech/security enthusiasts, it is appealing due to its federated architecture, privacy, etc. For anyone else, it’s too complicated. Even discord, often cited, suffers from this imo. The mass public does not want complicated. The mention of words like “e2e”, “server”, “bridge”, “decentralized”, might as well be from an alien language. That said, if it works well for their target demographic then it could have success in that space.
    - mekster 6y ago
      It can be solved with a simple client that hides the complexity but only shows what makes sense to average users.
      - Arathorn 6y ago
        So we are painfully aware that Riot’s usability still needs to increase, as per https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing-is-here/#what-s-next https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing... - although I’m not sure it’s quite as dire as the GP makes out. All I can say is that we’ve hired three permanent kick-ass full time UI/UX designers for the team, put them charge of the product direction for Riot, and told all the devs that their job is to do nothing but implement their design iterations as efficiently and accurately as possible. Let’s see how it goes.
nimbius 6y ago
Signal has publicly threatened to shutter their US operations if EARN IT passes, so id say its relatively resilient. https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-security-news/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-securi... regardless, the e2e encryption debate seems largely settled by the key players at this point. I think any legislation that makes its way through is likely to see brinkmanship again. Theres no reason these services cant use darknets. At the risk of sounding like a cryptobro, theres also no reason they have to use a server at all with blockchain.
- KingMachiavelli 6y ago
  Having to leave a country is pretty much the opposite of 'resilient' in this context. They have to leave because it is a centrialized system and can be regulated like any other entitiy. Matrix is federated and individual servers can be run by volunteers/individuals for whom EARN IT would not apply.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    > Matrix is federated and individual servers can be run by volunteers/individuals for whom EARN IT would not apply. It would apply to them if they were or served US citizens, which would mean that nobody in the US could get encryption, which is exactly what might happen with Signal.
    - mirimir 6y ago
      > It would apply to them if they were or served US citizens, ... Sure, but only if they could be identified. So obviously any such volunteers would make sure that they remained anonymous. Otherwise, they would suffer the consequences.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > Signal has publicly threatened to shutter their US operations if EARN IT passes, so id say its relatively resilient. So if every country passes something like EARN IT, Signal shuts down, how is that resilient?
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> is anonymous How is this achieved? How can this be attacked? Are users at risk of deanonymization?
- Arathorn 6y ago
  Matrix's anonymity comes from the fact that anyone can create an account on a public server on the network using an arbitrary username that doesn't have to be linked to a phone number or email or any other identifier. However, the server they use can see their IP address and their access patterns, and the other servers in their rooms will be able to see what rooms they are in and the metadata of their message history in those rooms. This could theoretically be used to deanonymise users - after all, the rooms where a user hangs out, the members they share rooms with, and their message frequency in those rooms is all sensitive metadata. As tptacek points out, Signal doesn't track that and just passes messages from A to B, whereas Matrix by design is about syncing conversation history between users & servers, and to do that it needs to record the conversation history (and thus its metadata). We're mitigating this with P2P Matrix (https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/dip_p2p_matrix/ https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/dip_p2p_matrix/ etc), where there are no longer servers where metadata pools.
  - guug 6y ago
    Wouldn't using something like tor mitigate the issue of servers seeing IP addresses?
    - Arathorn 6y ago
      sure, or any kind of anonymising vpn.
  - est31 6y ago
    Signal's sealed sender reveals ip addresses of the sender as well. And if you use the same IP to log in to the signal service, they can figure out who you are easily. The data pools even more as Signal is centralized. You only have to get AWS give access to Signal's infrastructure. And guess what, the DoD has giant AWS contracts already and with that tons of leverage.
softwarejosh 6y ago
i have a solution in the works
baby 6y ago
How does Signal protects metadata? I love Signal but that's not true. Your phone number, your IP, who you send a message to, at what time, etc. is sent to the server. What metadata are you talking about?
- tialaramex 6y ago
  Metadata is data /about/ data. A file with all 4 billion possible IPv4 addresses written out is not an unprecedented security hole it's just useless for example. "Who you send a message to" is actually a relationship between two pieces of information, a sender and a recipient but Signal doesn't collect this in most cases. Who the message they received is _to_ in the sense of which Signal account it's for, they need to know in order to store it and pass it on. But who you were they don't need in most cases because of their Sealed Sender feature. When you converse with Alice your phone fetches profile data that it is able to unlock because Alice's phone agrees you're a friend and provided the key to do so. Alice's profile includes tokens that her friends can use to send her messages. Subsequently your phone presents a token authorising you to send messages to her, and so Signal does not ask it to identify itself when sending this message. As a result Signal intentionally does not learn who sent these routine messages between friends and acquaintances even though the message recipient can determine who sent them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hiq 6y ago
    More info on the sealed sender functionality which is IMHO one of the main distinguishing feature of Signal: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/ https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/ Apart from that, group membership is also E2EE, which is a signifiant piece of metadata.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    > Who the message they received is _to_ in the sense of which Signal account it's for, they need to know And, by extension, the exact real world identity and location of this person. Signal promises not to store metadata, but definitively have access to it.
x3blah 6y ago
Only one appears to allow for E2E without the help of a third party. If person A and person B are technically capable and want to run their own servers and use their own clients, without involving a third party, then Matrix appears to allow for that. With Signal E2E is only available if persons A and B involved Signal in the process, including using Signal's software. Matrix appears to be just a protocol. Theoretically, there is no need for users to involve the Matrix organisation in their E2E communications. Signal: - cannot run own server - writing clients discouraged; centralised control preferred Matrix: + can run own server + writing clients encouraged Ideally, what persons A and B might want is a protocol that allows for peer-to-peer connections without passing traffic through the third party. The server might be merely a point of rendezvous to enable one person to discover the network address of the other. For example, person A contacts person B's rendezvous server for person B's address, port, etc. Then person A makes direct connection to person B. Once that peer-to-peer connection is established there is no more need for the server. No traffic passes through it. It could even be shut down.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Tox. Each user runs a Tor onion service, and they talk to each other.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
3r8riacz 6y ago
Maybe now it's time to refresh the research papers on Matrix/Riot privacy concerns. After reading these a few months back, I wasn't so sure anymore that Matrix/Riot is what I can wholehartedly trust: https://github.com/libremonde-org/paper-research-privacy-matrix.org https://github.com/libremonde-org/paper-research-privacy-mat...
- driminicus 6y ago
  Those research papers are written by a person that is (was?) making a hostile fork of the protocol. That is not to say everything in there was wrong, but it was blown out of proportion from my perspective. Also: they are fairly old by now, and most complaints that have merit have been addressed.
  - neiljohnson 6y ago
    > Also: they are fairly old by now, and most complaints that have merit have been addressed. This blog post goes into more detail https://matrix.org/blog/2019/06/30/tightening-up-privacy-in-matrix https://matrix.org/blog/2019/06/30/tightening-up-privacy-in-...
    - Arathorn 6y ago
      Yeah, sadly the ‘research paper’ wasn’t updated after we fixed the issues it highlighted; see also https://matrix.org/blog/2019/09/27/privacy-improvements-in-synapse-1-4-and-riot-1-4 https://matrix.org/blog/2019/09/27/privacy-improvements-in-s...
a_imho 6y ago
Matrix: community funded, clearly stated Signal: ?Brian Acton?
- Arathorn 6y ago
  (in the interests of accuracy: most core Matrix development is funded by New Vector, the company started by the Matrix team to try to keep the lights on, which in turn makes money via selling Matrix hosting at Modular.im and providing professional services at Vector.im. New Vector has also taken on investment funding - https://matrix.org/blog/2018/01/29/status-partners-up-with-new-vector-fueling-decentralised-comms-and-the-matrix-ecosystem https://matrix.org/blog/2018/01/29/status-partners-up-with-n... and https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/10/new-vector-scores-8-5m-to-plug-more-users-into-its-open-decentralized-messaging-matrix/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/10/new-vector-scores-8-5m-to-...)
- tptacek 6y ago
  That's a super weird bit of shade to throw, since Signal operated --- and gained most of its adoption --- for many years before Acton donated to the project.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    Huh? What is super weird about following the money? I was looking for Signal business model and was not able to find it.

Arathorn 6y ago

You could argue that Matrix does protect metadata if you run your own server - and in extremis, one way of running your own server and protect metadata is to go P2P and embed it into your client (which is one thing we're currently working on). That said, there are some other pretty big differences between Matrix & Signal; the biggest one is probably that Matrix is an open standard and open network, encouraging 3rd party clients, servers, bridges, bots etc - optimising both for freedom/liberty as well as encryption. Signal optimises for privacy at all costs and doesn't allow 3rd party clients or services. See https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom for more.

tptacek 6y ago
That's not really a reasonable argument. Signal makes a profound UX tradeoff to protect metadata by not requiring servers to store it in the first place: it drafts off people's phone contact lists, and thus everyone who uses it needs to be identified by a phone number. Matrix doesn't have any special way of avoiding that tradeoff. It just takes the other end of the trade: Matrix servers are exposed to valuable metadata, so that people can use whatever identifier they want. And, of course, the flip side of Matrix's "freedom and liberty" federalized design is that it is May 7, 2020, and the project is just now announcing E2E by default for private conversations. This is exactly why, years ago, Moxie Marlinspike wrote his post arguing about the downsides of federalization. It sure looks like his predictions were borne out! I think both of these projects are valid and important, and that they have different goals and audiences, and we do people a disservice when we pretend like they're in any kind of serious competition. Matrix is what you'd replace an IRC server with. Signal is what you'd tell an immigration lawyer to use for messaging.
- chrisweekly 6y ago
  Thank you for this illuminating comment; it was helpful and imho exemplary.
- fiter 6y ago
  I believe you consider phone numbers pseudo-anonymous identifiers, which I believe Matrix names also qualify as. Is there any technical reason why Matrix servers would have to store contact lists? Both Signal and Matrix would have store message metadata to deliver it. I searched for what the significant difference is, but could not come up with a good document to read.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    Phone numbers are the most identifying piece of information. They are precise identifiers not pseudo-anonymous. A non-burner phone can easily be converted to a complete background check on the person for under $50 ,for a higher price it can be converted to current realtime physical address.
    - ChristianBundy 6y ago
      > easily be converted Could you link to a reputable resource for this? I've always imagined that phone number background checks were mostly scams with a bit of public information sprinkled on top. I'd be very surprised to learn that I could purchase a burner phone, give you the phone number, and have you be able to tell me my address and criminal history.
      - fwip 6y ago
        They just said "non-burner phone."
      - snazz 6y ago
        For non-burner phones, just Google the phone number---you'll probably get a sketchy "look this person up for $XX.YY" telephone directory page that will contain their full name and age, if not their address.
mirimir 6y ago
But there's no anonymity in Matrix by default, right? Can Matrix servers be run as Tor onion services?
- ptman 6y ago
  They can, but the tor servers cannot federate with non-tor -servers (how would the non-tor -servers connect to the tor-servers?)
  - mirimir 6y ago
    One can run reverse Tor to clearnet proxies that are both anonymous and ~disposable. That is, knowing the proxy IP doesn't compromise the Tor onion server, and the proxy retains no PII, and can be readily replaced if taken down.
mekster 6y ago
I've tried Matrix. The principle sounds great but the lack of quality client just put me off on whichever platforms I've tried with most popular clients. The interface is just complicated for average people and the translations were half done and this will scare people off if I recommend for cross company chat. The server side may be great but it needs some work to have simple and elegant client on desktop and mobile clients. Currently I use Mattermost and it seems to be doing ok but this has no built-in support for audio and video.
- holler 6y ago
  Personally I think this is a fundamental problem with matrix and why it will always only appeal to a certain segment of users. For those users, namely tech/security enthusiasts, it is appealing due to its federated architecture, privacy, etc. For anyone else, it’s too complicated. Even discord, often cited, suffers from this imo. The mass public does not want complicated. The mention of words like “e2e”, “server”, “bridge”, “decentralized”, might as well be from an alien language. That said, if it works well for their target demographic then it could have success in that space.
  - mekster 6y ago
    It can be solved with a simple client that hides the complexity but only shows what makes sense to average users.
    - Arathorn 6y ago
      So we are painfully aware that Riot’s usability still needs to increase, as per https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing-is-here/#what-s-next https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing... - although I’m not sure it’s quite as dire as the GP makes out. All I can say is that we’ve hired three permanent kick-ass full time UI/UX designers for the team, put them charge of the product direction for Riot, and told all the devs that their job is to do nothing but implement their design iterations as efficiently and accurately as possible. Let’s see how it goes.

nimbius 6y ago

Signal has publicly threatened to shutter their US operations if EARN IT passes, so id say its relatively resilient. https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-security-news/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-earn-it-ransomware-securi... regardless, the e2e encryption debate seems largely settled by the key players at this point. I think any legislation that makes its way through is likely to see brinkmanship again. Theres no reason these services cant use darknets. At the risk of sounding like a cryptobro, theres also no reason they have to use a server at all with blockchain.

KingMachiavelli 6y ago
Having to leave a country is pretty much the opposite of 'resilient' in this context. They have to leave because it is a centrialized system and can be regulated like any other entitiy. Matrix is federated and individual servers can be run by volunteers/individuals for whom EARN IT would not apply.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  > Matrix is federated and individual servers can be run by volunteers/individuals for whom EARN IT would not apply. It would apply to them if they were or served US citizens, which would mean that nobody in the US could get encryption, which is exactly what might happen with Signal.
  - mirimir 6y ago
    > It would apply to them if they were or served US citizens, ... Sure, but only if they could be identified. So obviously any such volunteers would make sure that they remained anonymous. Otherwise, they would suffer the consequences.
ekianjo 6y ago
> Signal has publicly threatened to shutter their US operations if EARN IT passes, so id say its relatively resilient. So if every country passes something like EARN IT, Signal shuts down, how is that resilient?

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> is anonymous How is this achieved? How can this be attacked? Are users at risk of deanonymization?

Arathorn 6y ago
Matrix's anonymity comes from the fact that anyone can create an account on a public server on the network using an arbitrary username that doesn't have to be linked to a phone number or email or any other identifier. However, the server they use can see their IP address and their access patterns, and the other servers in their rooms will be able to see what rooms they are in and the metadata of their message history in those rooms. This could theoretically be used to deanonymise users - after all, the rooms where a user hangs out, the members they share rooms with, and their message frequency in those rooms is all sensitive metadata. As tptacek points out, Signal doesn't track that and just passes messages from A to B, whereas Matrix by design is about syncing conversation history between users & servers, and to do that it needs to record the conversation history (and thus its metadata). We're mitigating this with P2P Matrix (https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/dip_p2p_matrix/ https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/dip_p2p_matrix/ etc), where there are no longer servers where metadata pools.
- guug 6y ago
  Wouldn't using something like tor mitigate the issue of servers seeing IP addresses?
  - Arathorn 6y ago
    sure, or any kind of anonymising vpn.
- est31 6y ago
  Signal's sealed sender reveals ip addresses of the sender as well. And if you use the same IP to log in to the signal service, they can figure out who you are easily. The data pools even more as Signal is centralized. You only have to get AWS give access to Signal's infrastructure. And guess what, the DoD has giant AWS contracts already and with that tons of leverage.

softwarejosh 6y ago

i have a solution in the works

baby 6y ago

How does Signal protects metadata? I love Signal but that's not true. Your phone number, your IP, who you send a message to, at what time, etc. is sent to the server. What metadata are you talking about?

tialaramex 6y ago
Metadata is data /about/ data. A file with all 4 billion possible IPv4 addresses written out is not an unprecedented security hole it's just useless for example. "Who you send a message to" is actually a relationship between two pieces of information, a sender and a recipient but Signal doesn't collect this in most cases. Who the message they received is _to_ in the sense of which Signal account it's for, they need to know in order to store it and pass it on. But who you were they don't need in most cases because of their Sealed Sender feature. When you converse with Alice your phone fetches profile data that it is able to unlock because Alice's phone agrees you're a friend and provided the key to do so. Alice's profile includes tokens that her friends can use to send her messages. Subsequently your phone presents a token authorising you to send messages to her, and so Signal does not ask it to identify itself when sending this message. As a result Signal intentionally does not learn who sent these routine messages between friends and acquaintances even though the message recipient can determine who sent them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hiq 6y ago
  More info on the sealed sender functionality which is IMHO one of the main distinguishing feature of Signal: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/ https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/ Apart from that, group membership is also E2EE, which is a signifiant piece of metadata.
- xorcist 6y ago
  > Who the message they received is _to_ in the sense of which Signal account it's for, they need to know And, by extension, the exact real world identity and location of this person. Signal promises not to store metadata, but definitively have access to it.

x3blah 6y ago

Only one appears to allow for E2E without the help of a third party. If person A and person B are technically capable and want to run their own servers and use their own clients, without involving a third party, then Matrix appears to allow for that. With Signal E2E is only available if persons A and B involved Signal in the process, including using Signal's software. Matrix appears to be just a protocol. Theoretically, there is no need for users to involve the Matrix organisation in their E2E communications. Signal: - cannot run own server - writing clients discouraged; centralised control preferred Matrix: + can run own server + writing clients encouraged Ideally, what persons A and B might want is a protocol that allows for peer-to-peer connections without passing traffic through the third party. The server might be merely a point of rendezvous to enable one person to discover the network address of the other. For example, person A contacts person B's rendezvous server for person B's address, port, etc. Then person A makes direct connection to person B. Once that peer-to-peer connection is established there is no more need for the server. No traffic passes through it. It could even be shut down.

mirimir 6y ago
Tox. Each user runs a Tor onion service, and they talk to each other.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

3r8riacz 6y ago

Maybe now it's time to refresh the research papers on Matrix/Riot privacy concerns. After reading these a few months back, I wasn't so sure anymore that Matrix/Riot is what I can wholehartedly trust: https://github.com/libremonde-org/paper-research-privacy-matrix.org https://github.com/libremonde-org/paper-research-privacy-mat...

driminicus 6y ago
Those research papers are written by a person that is (was?) making a hostile fork of the protocol. That is not to say everything in there was wrong, but it was blown out of proportion from my perspective. Also: they are fairly old by now, and most complaints that have merit have been addressed.
- neiljohnson 6y ago
  > Also: they are fairly old by now, and most complaints that have merit have been addressed. This blog post goes into more detail https://matrix.org/blog/2019/06/30/tightening-up-privacy-in-matrix https://matrix.org/blog/2019/06/30/tightening-up-privacy-in-...
  - Arathorn 6y ago
    Yeah, sadly the ‘research paper’ wasn’t updated after we fixed the issues it highlighted; see also https://matrix.org/blog/2019/09/27/privacy-improvements-in-synapse-1-4-and-riot-1-4 https://matrix.org/blog/2019/09/27/privacy-improvements-in-s...

a_imho 6y ago

Matrix: community funded, clearly stated Signal: ?Brian Acton?

Arathorn 6y ago
(in the interests of accuracy: most core Matrix development is funded by New Vector, the company started by the Matrix team to try to keep the lights on, which in turn makes money via selling Matrix hosting at Modular.im and providing professional services at Vector.im. New Vector has also taken on investment funding - https://matrix.org/blog/2018/01/29/status-partners-up-with-new-vector-fueling-decentralised-comms-and-the-matrix-ecosystem https://matrix.org/blog/2018/01/29/status-partners-up-with-n... and https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/10/new-vector-scores-8-5m-to-plug-more-users-into-its-open-decentralized-messaging-matrix/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/10/new-vector-scores-8-5m-to-...)
tptacek 6y ago
That's a super weird bit of shade to throw, since Signal operated --- and gained most of its adoption --- for many years before Acton donated to the project.
- a_imho 6y ago
  Huh? What is super weird about following the money? I was looking for Signal business model and was not able to find it.