3 ms·
The good answer: They can't verify the integrity of alternative clients and that they don't leak info The other answer: They've got somewhat of a "we know best
by m12k 4y ago
The good answer: They can't verify the integrity of alternative clients and that they don't leak info
The other answer: They've got somewhat of a "we know best" vibe going for them which also comes in play when you see their response to feature requests - e.g. for usernames instead of phone numbers or for "edit message" functionality like Telegram has.
- Vinnl 4y agoI don't know what response to username feature requests you're talking about, but AFAIK they've been saying for a long time already that they're working on that — but it's a significant rework of their architecture, so it understandably is taking a long time, especially to also do so in a privacy preserving way.
- _-david-_ 4y ago>The good answer: They can't verify the integrity of alternative clients and that they don't leak info The good answer isn't even a good argument. The client is open source. People have forked it and used the Signal network. Signal asked them to stop and they did, but there is nothing stopping people from ignoring Signal's request in the future. This has nothing to do with federation. Signal could federate their network and still request everybody use the official client.
- Klonoar 4y agoYour point in no way explains why the argument from Signal is bad, and arguably completely misses the point.
- _-david-_ 4y agoMy point is client integrity and federation of servers are not related.
- atonse 4y agoWhat exactly is the problem anyone would be trying to solve by adding third party clients?