5 ms·

Or they could just let people host their own server instances. Would be considerably more censorship resistant from the start.

JohnBerea 6y ago
Or just use Element/Matrix which already lets you do that.
- hospadar 6y ago
  I feel like this answer to "how to make government censorship of private communications over the internet impossible" is more complex though than just "use element/matrix" It seems like both signal and matrix choose "Human-meaningful" over "distributed" on Zooko's Triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle Matrix is federated which I'd argue is pretty different than "distributed". Certainly the fact that federation is built-in makes matrix more resistant to lazy censors who are slow to block popular homeservers, but a concerted check-any-IP-and-if-it-seems-like-it-might-be-a-homeserver-then-block-it action by a censor would be harder to deal with. Wouldn't a truly distributed/secure/really-super-hard-to-block protocol rely on non-meaningful addresses (i.e. public-key-derived like a tor hidden service) and some kind of interesting mesh setup (i.e. like tor) to route and deliver messages?
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > Wouldn't a truly distributed/secure/really-super-hard-to-block protocol rely on non-meaningful addresses (i.e. public-key-derived like a tor hidden service) and some kind of interesting mesh setup (i.e. like tor) to route and deliver messages? Yes. You just described Briar.
- notme77 6y ago
  Found the PM
awestroke 6y ago
You're welcome to either use such a decentralised service or fork signal and add decentralisation / federation. Centralised services get more users by having a lower threshold of adoption.
- turminal 6y ago
  What's the purpose of signal? Is it taking over the world or providing a service to people that care about their privacy and free (as in freedom) communication?
  - sa1 6y ago
    There are lots of purposes but dismantling mass surveillance is a major one. This requires 'taking over the world'.
    - fourthark 6y ago
      ... Creating a central point of failure / censorship?
      - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
        Yeah so this latest attempt seems to want to “fix” that. “Hey, let’s distribute connections (proxy servers) to our central point of failure so that we can get around the central point of failure. Genius!” /s
        im3w1l 6y ago
        They want to have a monopoly on points of failure. We can censor but no one else.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    Creating yet another walled garden.
- danShumway 6y ago
ekianjo 6y ago
Too bad, the Signal devs love centralization. One day people will realize Signal is just not the right solution for what they actually need.
- tleb_ 6y ago
  As if it was that simple; no it's not as simple as decentralization > centralisation. You might not agree with everything (I don't) but this video provides some good points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YFprqAr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YFprqAr8 I trust Signal to try their hardest to solve communication, spitting on them is not the solution.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    I didn't watch the video but his article with the same title is almost entirely bad points.[1] Email is end to end encrypted for people who make it a priority. It would be end to end encrypted for everyone if Google or Microsoft made it a priority. The difference between XMPP and Signal is funding. Signal supports video on all platforms because Open Whisper Systems hired people to work on it. XMPP didn't because the popular clients are developed by volunteers. People don't like using lots of messaging apps. So switching apps is much harder than changing your email address because you have to convince other people to switch. Even Signal is moving away from using phone numbers. [1] https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
    - jampekka 6y ago
      Signal's been "moving away from using phone numbers" for almost as long as it's been developed. They've burned tens of millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it on that front. Also they insist of making piece of shit bloatware clients and actively kill every attempt for someone to fix it. Because Moxie is always right apparently. I really hope the situation is just due to incompetence and hubris.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    It's simple, very simple. XMPP is by far more fluid, and "productive" when it comes adding new protocol features, or at least if you compare it with Signal. Marlinspike is making up the problem. A messaging client is as agile as its developers are, and in case of Signal, not that much. Evolving a protocol, and developing new features is done by doing programming, and not by some philosophical discourses, and pooing over the competition on tech events.

JohnBerea 6y ago

Or just use Element/Matrix which already lets you do that.

hospadar 6y ago
I feel like this answer to "how to make government censorship of private communications over the internet impossible" is more complex though than just "use element/matrix" It seems like both signal and matrix choose "Human-meaningful" over "distributed" on Zooko's Triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle Matrix is federated which I'd argue is pretty different than "distributed". Certainly the fact that federation is built-in makes matrix more resistant to lazy censors who are slow to block popular homeservers, but a concerted check-any-IP-and-if-it-seems-like-it-might-be-a-homeserver-then-block-it action by a censor would be harder to deal with. Wouldn't a truly distributed/secure/really-super-hard-to-block protocol rely on non-meaningful addresses (i.e. public-key-derived like a tor hidden service) and some kind of interesting mesh setup (i.e. like tor) to route and deliver messages?
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > Wouldn't a truly distributed/secure/really-super-hard-to-block protocol rely on non-meaningful addresses (i.e. public-key-derived like a tor hidden service) and some kind of interesting mesh setup (i.e. like tor) to route and deliver messages? Yes. You just described Briar.
notme77 6y ago
Found the PM

awestroke 6y ago

You're welcome to either use such a decentralised service or fork signal and add decentralisation / federation. Centralised services get more users by having a lower threshold of adoption.

turminal 6y ago
What's the purpose of signal? Is it taking over the world or providing a service to people that care about their privacy and free (as in freedom) communication?
- sa1 6y ago
  There are lots of purposes but dismantling mass surveillance is a major one. This requires 'taking over the world'.
  - fourthark 6y ago
    ... Creating a central point of failure / censorship?
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      Yeah so this latest attempt seems to want to “fix” that. “Hey, let’s distribute connections (proxy servers) to our central point of failure so that we can get around the central point of failure. Genius!” /s
      - im3w1l 6y ago
        They want to have a monopoly on points of failure. We can censor but no one else.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  Creating yet another walled garden.
danShumway 6y ago

ekianjo 6y ago

Too bad, the Signal devs love centralization. One day people will realize Signal is just not the right solution for what they actually need.

tleb_ 6y ago
As if it was that simple; no it's not as simple as decentralization > centralisation. You might not agree with everything (I don't) but this video provides some good points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YFprqAr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YFprqAr8 I trust Signal to try their hardest to solve communication, spitting on them is not the solution.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  I didn't watch the video but his article with the same title is almost entirely bad points.[1] Email is end to end encrypted for people who make it a priority. It would be end to end encrypted for everyone if Google or Microsoft made it a priority. The difference between XMPP and Signal is funding. Signal supports video on all platforms because Open Whisper Systems hired people to work on it. XMPP didn't because the popular clients are developed by volunteers. People don't like using lots of messaging apps. So switching apps is much harder than changing your email address because you have to convince other people to switch. Even Signal is moving away from using phone numbers. [1] https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
  - jampekka 6y ago
    Signal's been "moving away from using phone numbers" for almost as long as it's been developed. They've burned tens of millions of dollars and have nothing to show for it on that front. Also they insist of making piece of shit bloatware clients and actively kill every attempt for someone to fix it. Because Moxie is always right apparently. I really hope the situation is just due to incompetence and hubris.
- baybal2 6y ago
  It's simple, very simple. XMPP is by far more fluid, and "productive" when it comes adding new protocol features, or at least if you compare it with Signal. Marlinspike is making up the problem. A messaging client is as agile as its developers are, and in case of Signal, not that much. Evolving a protocol, and developing new features is done by doing programming, and not by some philosophical discourses, and pooing over the competition on tech events.