6 ms·

Yes, it would force people to use better alternatives such as Signal or Telegram.

by jcalve 6y ago

eznzt 6y ago
If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. I've used the Signal app and it's a bug fest. Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups.
- GraemeMeyer 6y ago
  > If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. This isn't necessarily true - that's basically the problem with monopolies and the point of anti-trust. The network effect really can entrench an inferior product.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    That's not a useful definition of better though. WhatsApp, Messenger, etc. are better because they're reliable and the people I want to talk to use them. MMS messages are hot garbage but they're still better than a lot of alternatives because everyone with a phone can receive them.
- josefx 6y ago
  Main reason I use whats app is because everyone else I deal with uses whats app, not because it has specific features. I could probably list a different chat app and social networking site for every time I switched a school and when I started to study.
  - rusk 6y ago
    I do personally believe that for all its faults WhatsApp is the best. It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. It’s up to regulation to set the boundaries for what’s acceptable in business so let’s see what happens.
    - josefx 6y ago
      > It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. They could just run it as a paid service again? They had a minimal annual charge before the Facebook acquisition and probably could have raised that, instead Facebook made it "free" which should have been a warning sign of things to come.
      - hadrien01 6y ago
        One of the reasons the founders left was that FB wanted to put ads and track users, and didn't even want to try to make a Business paid version like WhatsApp proposed.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups. Friendly reminder that encryption is more than E2E-encryption despite what certain people on HN thinks. Telegram is encrypted point-to-point by default. Same as banks, modern mail etc. Can we stop spreading technical misinformation now, please? There's plenty of other issues with Telegram and if we stop crying wolf over the neighbors grand danois people might actually believe us when there is an actual wolf.
turkeywelder 6y ago
that'll never happen - WhatsApp is almost WeChat for Europe, it's ubiquitous and the network effect is so strong you'll really struggle to get masses of people to switch away fom it. 99% of people outside of the HN bubble will just look at the dialog, click OK and carry on as normal.
- rusk 6y ago
  If WhatsApp can’t be legally compliant then they simply can’t provide the service. It’s up to them.
- submeta 6y ago
  Instead of surrendering we - technically aware people - should think about possibilities to make them respect privacy or think about ways to change the situation.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Yes but not clicking through the shrink-wrap agreement isn't a real way to do it. Legislation that requires people be able to say no to data collection without loss of service would go a long way.
- StreamBright 6y ago
  I have messaged a bunch of my EU friends with this article. Most of them were shocked.
  - technocratius 6y ago
    I did the same. Mixed reactions, some shocked, some shrug and move on. And my friends are academically educated and relatively conscious of this issue I believe. Probably not the most representative sample...
    - StreamBright 6y ago
      I think this level ignorance is pretty common today.
krageon 6y ago
Signal is run by someone who hates repeatable builds and open platforms. Telegram is to the russian government what whatsapp is to the US government. That is to say, both options are bad. Of course it is conceptually better to spread your information over many separate information silos so that your data is harder to correlate. That should not be the bar we aspire to though.
- Freak_NL 6y ago
  All of these apps seem to hate open platforms and third party clients; Signal just as much as WhatsApp. I wouldn't even mind using WhatsApp if I could just open a browser window on any modern computer and log on like I can with Twitter. But no, I need to have a smartphone with either Android or IOS. They all want that magic unique personal identifier that is the mobile phone number to prevent you from having more than one persona, and they all want their closed apps as the sole way of using their service. Of course, that requirement is exactly how they implement the user lock-in, so it's not going anywhere until legislation forces them to open up.
  - vorticalbox 6y ago
    Signal is actually open source but I agree with the sentiment. Services now just want some person info they can link to you and that actually scares me a little.
    - Freak_NL 6y ago
      You're right about Signal having an open source client of course. It's a closed platform because of the 'no-forks-allowed' stipulations.
      - Bit32 6y ago
        The main reason for not wishing that Signal is forked revolves around adding new features. It stops things being fragmented. As both the client _and the server_ is open source though it's entirely possible to do things like Signal<->Matrix bridges.

Yes, it would force people to use better alternatives such as Signal or Telegram.

by jcalve 6y ago

Yes, it would force people to use better alternatives such as Signal or Telegram.

If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. I've used the Signal app and it's a bug fest. Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups.

GraemeMeyer 6y ago
> If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. This isn't necessarily true - that's basically the problem with monopolies and the point of anti-trust. The network effect really can entrench an inferior product.
- Spivak 6y ago
  That's not a useful definition of better though. WhatsApp, Messenger, etc. are better because they're reliable and the people I want to talk to use them. MMS messages are hot garbage but they're still better than a lot of alternatives because everyone with a phone can receive them.
josefx 6y ago
Main reason I use whats app is because everyone else I deal with uses whats app, not because it has specific features. I could probably list a different chat app and social networking site for every time I switched a school and when I started to study.
- rusk 6y ago
  I do personally believe that for all its faults WhatsApp is the best. It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. It’s up to regulation to set the boundaries for what’s acceptable in business so let’s see what happens.
  - josefx 6y ago
    > It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. They could just run it as a paid service again? They had a minimal annual charge before the Facebook acquisition and probably could have raised that, instead Facebook made it "free" which should have been a warning sign of things to come.
    - hadrien01 6y ago
      One of the reasons the founders left was that FB wanted to put ads and track users, and didn't even want to try to make a Business paid version like WhatsApp proposed.
skinkestek 6y ago
> Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups. Friendly reminder that encryption is more than E2E-encryption despite what certain people on HN thinks. Telegram is encrypted point-to-point by default. Same as banks, modern mail etc. Can we stop spreading technical misinformation now, please? There's plenty of other issues with Telegram and if we stop crying wolf over the neighbors grand danois people might actually believe us when there is an actual wolf.

turkeywelder 6y ago

that'll never happen - WhatsApp is almost WeChat for Europe, it's ubiquitous and the network effect is so strong you'll really struggle to get masses of people to switch away fom it. 99% of people outside of the HN bubble will just look at the dialog, click OK and carry on as normal.

rusk 6y ago
If WhatsApp can’t be legally compliant then they simply can’t provide the service. It’s up to them.
submeta 6y ago
Instead of surrendering we - technically aware people - should think about possibilities to make them respect privacy or think about ways to change the situation.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Yes but not clicking through the shrink-wrap agreement isn't a real way to do it. Legislation that requires people be able to say no to data collection without loss of service would go a long way.
StreamBright 6y ago
I have messaged a bunch of my EU friends with this article. Most of them were shocked.
- technocratius 6y ago
  I did the same. Mixed reactions, some shocked, some shrug and move on. And my friends are academically educated and relatively conscious of this issue I believe. Probably not the most representative sample...
  - StreamBright 6y ago
    I think this level ignorance is pretty common today.

krageon 6y ago

Signal is run by someone who hates repeatable builds and open platforms. Telegram is to the russian government what whatsapp is to the US government. That is to say, both options are bad. Of course it is conceptually better to spread your information over many separate information silos so that your data is harder to correlate. That should not be the bar we aspire to though.

Freak_NL 6y ago
All of these apps seem to hate open platforms and third party clients; Signal just as much as WhatsApp. I wouldn't even mind using WhatsApp if I could just open a browser window on any modern computer and log on like I can with Twitter. But no, I need to have a smartphone with either Android or IOS. They all want that magic unique personal identifier that is the mobile phone number to prevent you from having more than one persona, and they all want their closed apps as the sole way of using their service. Of course, that requirement is exactly how they implement the user lock-in, so it's not going anywhere until legislation forces them to open up.
- vorticalbox 6y ago
  Signal is actually open source but I agree with the sentiment. Services now just want some person info they can link to you and that actually scares me a little.
  - Freak_NL 6y ago
    You're right about Signal having an open source client of course. It's a closed platform because of the 'no-forks-allowed' stipulations.
    - Bit32 6y ago
      The main reason for not wishing that Signal is forked revolves around adding new features. It stops things being fragmented. As both the client _and the server_ is open source though it's entirely possible to do things like Signal<->Matrix bridges.