3 ms·

Maybe, but I think that the way these researchers reacted when their criticism wasn't heard doesn't benefit anybody. By ratcheting up the tension and participat

Maybe, but I think that the way these researchers reacted when their criticism wasn't heard doesn't benefit anybody. By ratcheting up the tension and participating in an internet catfight against the Signal team, a net loss occurs for the anti-censorship community. If the Signal team does indeed have a real problem with taking feedback and criticism, a better approach might've been to gather support and enter into long-term negotiation over Signal's future relationship with the community. This would make its development a lot smoother and prevent anger and bruised egos from building in the future.

pm90 6y ago
The owners and maintainers of the product get to decide on how to handle issues like this one. But I’m not convinced that an “internet catfight” is a good enough reason for shutting down the conversation completely as it was done. I am aware that it’s totally unfair that signal owners should have to deal with this kind of behavior and not take strong measure like they did... I don’t really know what a good resolution would have been. But it’s also a fact that if a system is broken in some way then that hard truth remains true even if it’s wrapped in layers of shit. The ultimate losers will be the users.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  > You were blocked because you know that we don't use GH for discussion, but came here anyway and started opening fake PRs so that you could post and harass other people on GH. > …If you want to discuss anything about circumvention or any other aspects of Signal in a way that is respectful to the rest of the community, please join in on the forums. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-TLS-Proxy/pull/15#issuecomment-774982590 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-TLS-Proxy/pull/15#issuec... That does not to me seem like "shutting down the conversation completely". (As if there is even a way to do that on the internet if you were to try!)
  - pm90 6y ago
    Like I said, it’s totally upto the project owners to decide how they want to interface with the community. But the concrete result of that decision was just to move the discussion to a GitHub issue on another repo.
  - modzu 6y ago
    he was banned on the forums too
    - Dumbdo 6y ago
      Do you have a source for that?
      - modzu 6y ago
        #4 on the timeline: https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/63 https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/63
    - FDSGSG 6y ago
      He wasn't. Why lie about this? https://community.signalusers.org/u/DuckSoft/summary https://community.signalusers.org/u/DuckSoft/summary
      - modzu 6y ago
        im just quoting the parent article. can yall read it before commenting and making accusations?
        FDSGSG 6y ago
        The timeline is incorrect.
shadowgovt 6y ago
At this point, a clear demonstration of how Signal's current design fails to keep users safe forwarded to the New York Times, WaPo, and Fox News would be a lot more valuable than shitposting via the Github PR system.
- throwitaway1235 6y ago
  The New York Times published an article just a week ago claiming Signal was "problematic" for affording anonymity. I would assume WaPo feels the same way. No benefit in forwarding to either institution.

pm90 6y ago

The owners and maintainers of the product get to decide on how to handle issues like this one. But I’m not convinced that an “internet catfight” is a good enough reason for shutting down the conversation completely as it was done. I am aware that it’s totally unfair that signal owners should have to deal with this kind of behavior and not take strong measure like they did... I don’t really know what a good resolution would have been. But it’s also a fact that if a system is broken in some way then that hard truth remains true even if it’s wrapped in layers of shit. The ultimate losers will be the users.

jrochkind1 6y ago
> You were blocked because you know that we don't use GH for discussion, but came here anyway and started opening fake PRs so that you could post and harass other people on GH. > …If you want to discuss anything about circumvention or any other aspects of Signal in a way that is respectful to the rest of the community, please join in on the forums. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-TLS-Proxy/pull/15#issuecomment-774982590 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-TLS-Proxy/pull/15#issuec... That does not to me seem like "shutting down the conversation completely". (As if there is even a way to do that on the internet if you were to try!)
- pm90 6y ago
  Like I said, it’s totally upto the project owners to decide how they want to interface with the community. But the concrete result of that decision was just to move the discussion to a GitHub issue on another repo.
- modzu 6y ago
  he was banned on the forums too
  - Dumbdo 6y ago
    Do you have a source for that?
    - modzu 6y ago
      #4 on the timeline: https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/63 https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/63
  - FDSGSG 6y ago
    He wasn't. Why lie about this? https://community.signalusers.org/u/DuckSoft/summary https://community.signalusers.org/u/DuckSoft/summary
    - modzu 6y ago
      im just quoting the parent article. can yall read it before commenting and making accusations?
      - FDSGSG 6y ago
        The timeline is incorrect.

shadowgovt 6y ago

At this point, a clear demonstration of how Signal's current design fails to keep users safe forwarded to the New York Times, WaPo, and Fox News would be a lot more valuable than shitposting via the Github PR system.

throwitaway1235 6y ago
The New York Times published an article just a week ago claiming Signal was "problematic" for affording anonymity. I would assume WaPo feels the same way. No benefit in forwarding to either institution.