3 ms·

Digital Utopian1: Everyone is petting an unethical monkey because it is so cuddly. We must rescue them. Digital Utopian2: I know, let's design our wire monkey

Digital Utopian1: Everyone is petting an unethical monkey because it is so cuddly. We must rescue them. Digital Utopian2: I know, let's design our wire monkey to be 100% ethical and spread the word. Digital Utopian1: Shots fired! Not only is your logic impeccable, there cannot possibly be any alternative to this course of action! Digital Utopian2: Yay! I love our ethical technology. Digital Utopian1: Yay! I love our love for our ethical technology. Digital Utopian2: I love us. Digital Utopian1: I love us more... the two begin kissing, much to the chagrin of the other cafe patrons

dane-pgp 6y ago
Strawman 1: Everyone is using Signal, which I have no legitimate objections against, and only dislike because it's easy to use. Strawman 2: Yes, there aren't any technologies which care more about privacy and freedom, while still valuing good usability, because Element doesn't exist. Strawman 1: The only chat client I use is one I created myself, based on my cryptography PhD research. Using it requires memorising over 100 command-line options. Strawman 2: I would communicate with you using a copy of that client, but a chat network having two users would be too much mainstream adoption, which I hate. everyone in the cafe starts clapping, out of respect for their intelligence and principles [I think my story is about as convincing as yours, but yours was way hotter, well done.]
- jancsika 6y ago
  > Strawman 2: Yes, there aren't any technologies which care more about privacy and freedom, while still valuing good usability, because Element doesn't exist. From a chat-room creation dialog in Element: > Enable end-to-end encryption > You can’t disable this later. Bridges & most bots won’t work yet. That's a great option for backwards compatibility-- in fact I may end up trying it out for a public chat group at some point. But it's difficult to take seriously an argument that Element cares more about privacy than Signal when they have that option for the user. Well, it's hard to take seriously anything under a GP that yelled "honeypot!" at one of the applications under discussion.

dane-pgp 6y ago

Strawman 1: Everyone is using Signal, which I have no legitimate objections against, and only dislike because it's easy to use. Strawman 2: Yes, there aren't any technologies which care more about privacy and freedom, while still valuing good usability, because Element doesn't exist. Strawman 1: The only chat client I use is one I created myself, based on my cryptography PhD research. Using it requires memorising over 100 command-line options. Strawman 2: I would communicate with you using a copy of that client, but a chat network having two users would be too much mainstream adoption, which I hate. everyone in the cafe starts clapping, out of respect for their intelligence and principles [I think my story is about as convincing as yours, but yours was way hotter, well done.]

jancsika 6y ago
> Strawman 2: Yes, there aren't any technologies which care more about privacy and freedom, while still valuing good usability, because Element doesn't exist. From a chat-room creation dialog in Element: > Enable end-to-end encryption > You can’t disable this later. Bridges & most bots won’t work yet. That's a great option for backwards compatibility-- in fact I may end up trying it out for a public chat group at some point. But it's difficult to take seriously an argument that Element cares more about privacy than Signal when they have that option for the user. Well, it's hard to take seriously anything under a GP that yelled "honeypot!" at one of the applications under discussion.