7 ms·

Most messaging app users don't really care about encryption either. Most (or at least a large minority) probably wouldn't mind if their messages were used to 'd

Most messaging app users don't really care about encryption either. Most (or at least a large minority) probably wouldn't mind if their messages were used to 'deliver ads more suitable for you'. It doesn't mean these aren't important issues. Until Signal drops the phone number requirement (nothing beats that for efficient user tracking), allows desktop use without requiring a smartphone anywhere in the process, open sources their server code, and allows for third party clients in a reasonable way; I agree with dfkajglag: not yet an ally of user freedom.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Semaphor 5y ago
> Until Signal drops the phone number requirement (nothing beats that for efficient user tracking), allows desktop use without requiring a smartphone anywhere in the process I could handle the closed server for enabling me to use IM to talk to people. But these two points are what make it a non-starter for me.
lucian1900 5y ago
The phone number requirement is the only thing making Signal remotely close to usable for the wider public. Similarly, non-phone messaging is niche in the extreme. Unusable software is not an ally of user freedom. The actual problem with Signal is that they took US State Department funding. That doesn't mean it's an op necessarily, but suspicious nonetheless.
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  Why? If someone wants to use a phone number for their identifier, fine. But make it optional. If I join Signal with another alias (free-form string perhaps) then they could just add me via that. Not really harder than using my phone number.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Why? If someone wants to use a phone number for their identifier, fine. But make it optional Network effects. If you’re only findable via custom handle versus the phone number your network already has, you’ve reduced the network’s value to your contacts. Put another way, if I join a messaging service and it says two of my contacts are on it (but many more may be), that’s close to a non-starter.
    - Freak_NL 5y ago
      I'm fine with people not finding me automatically. If Signal wants to keep the low-resistance method of bulk-checking your contact's phone numbers, fine. Just give me the choice of joining without it.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > fine with people not finding me automatically That’s a private gain at the network’s cost. For a challenger, their decision to bar that albeit limited form of free-riding is perfectly rational. For a dominant network, I am much more sympathetic to the call for anonymity.
        turminal 5y ago
        Prioritizing your market share over private gains of your users is precisely the thing that makes you "not an ally of user freedom"
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Prioritizing your market share over private gains of your users Network effects make these virtually indistinguishable. If a network is unusable it doesn’t help anyone. There may be an argument, however, for charging for the opt out.
        5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Semaphor 5y ago

> Until Signal drops the phone number requirement (nothing beats that for efficient user tracking), allows desktop use without requiring a smartphone anywhere in the process I could handle the closed server for enabling me to use IM to talk to people. But these two points are what make it a non-starter for me.

lucian1900 5y ago

The phone number requirement is the only thing making Signal remotely close to usable for the wider public. Similarly, non-phone messaging is niche in the extreme. Unusable software is not an ally of user freedom. The actual problem with Signal is that they took US State Department funding. That doesn't mean it's an op necessarily, but suspicious nonetheless.

Freak_NL 5y ago
Why? If someone wants to use a phone number for their identifier, fine. But make it optional. If I join Signal with another alias (free-form string perhaps) then they could just add me via that. Not really harder than using my phone number.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Why? If someone wants to use a phone number for their identifier, fine. But make it optional Network effects. If you’re only findable via custom handle versus the phone number your network already has, you’ve reduced the network’s value to your contacts. Put another way, if I join a messaging service and it says two of my contacts are on it (but many more may be), that’s close to a non-starter.
  - Freak_NL 5y ago
    I'm fine with people not finding me automatically. If Signal wants to keep the low-resistance method of bulk-checking your contact's phone numbers, fine. Just give me the choice of joining without it.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > fine with people not finding me automatically That’s a private gain at the network’s cost. For a challenger, their decision to bar that albeit limited form of free-riding is perfectly rational. For a dominant network, I am much more sympathetic to the call for anonymity.
      - turminal 5y ago
        Prioritizing your market share over private gains of your users is precisely the thing that makes you "not an ally of user freedom"
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Prioritizing your market share over private gains of your users Network effects make these virtually indistinguishable. If a network is unusable it doesn’t help anyone. There may be an argument, however, for charging for the opt out.
        5y ago