7 ms·

Seriously consider setting up a recurring donation if you prefer Signal. They have delivered consistently over the years. I set the $20/month back when they int

by Canada 3y ago

Seriously consider setting up a recurring donation if you prefer Signal. They have delivered consistently over the years. I set the $20/month back when they introduced the option. I'm curious what the breakdown of donations is. I only have 1 contact with a $10/month and 1 with a $5/month badge. Of course there could be others not displaying the badge. Signal really needs 500,000 people giving $20/month and plus the rich guys giving some millions on top of that to be in a safe financial position. Maybe something that could be done to encourage donations is have the client estimate how much raw infra costs your usage created and display in the donation screen.

rglullis 3y ago
I fail to understand the point of supporting an organization that is completely against self-sovereignty like Signal is. Why would I want to pay someone to develop something that traps me into their platform and does not offer a way out?
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  Not completely ? Their server seems to be open source too now (with the exception of the spam filter) ?
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Can I operate my own Signal server and talk with people on the "main" one?
    - Caligatio 3y ago
      You're moving the goal post from "self-sovereignty" to supports federation with an infinite number of servers. Nothing is stopping you from compiling your own Signal server and modifying a Signal client to use your server. Given that Signal is free as a service, supporting federation only increases their expenses.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        Without federation, Signal is still working with the advantage of network effects. So an open source server is not enough of a way out. Element can do it for their Matrix servers. Process.one can do it for ejabberd. Prosody as well. Why can't Signal?
        sowbug 3y ago
        Back to your original point: please don't support an organization that doesn't share important values of yours! That is absolutely your choice! You've named several products that share your values. Perhaps those would be a better fit if you were to donate.
        growse 3y ago
        Because centralisation provides ecosystem agility, which they absolutely value as an upside. Find a way of doing post-quantum secure key exchange? Just roll it out to the server and all the clients essentially overnight. They've talked about this, a lot.
        rglullis 3y ago
        I'm well aware of their justifications. I'm also aware that centralization brings systemic risks, which they don't talk about. The internet would be a lot more efficient and able to evolve if we just had it controlled by one single entity like Google or Microsoft. Do you think is a good idea to do that? The economy would be a lot more efficient and allocation of resources could be a lot more fair if we could put it all in the hands of one single corporation or government. Do you think it's a good idea to do that? Agricultural output would improve significantly if all crops used the exact same genetic strain and if all soil was artificially managed. Do you think it's a good idea to do that? In case you are wondering, "ability to quickly roll out post-quantum key exchange" is waaaaay down the list of my worries compared to "facing a catastrophic Black Swan affecting all of the world's communications".
        growse 3y ago
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Clamchop 3y ago
      Federation can only make security worse and I do not want it. You can have something else.
      - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
        Genuine question: Does Tor fall under the definition of federation? Either way, a Tor-like model would have security benefits over a centralized system like Signal, right?
        bastawhiz 3y ago
        Tor is distributed, not federated. And it has drawbacks, like high latency and a lack of a centralized system for human-friendly names (because that would mean a system like DNS, which is centralized). As far as security goes, there's probably little benefit. E2EE doesn't get more secure because there's more encryption. The most comparable system to Tor that has practical properties I can think of is maybe ipfs, but nobody will store your encrypted chat blobs for you out of the goodness of their hearts. Ipfs also tends to have high latency. A slow system of uncooperative nodes isn't what you want your messaging app built on. A federated messaging system looks a lot more like Matrix. The obvious problems are that splitting users up over multiple nodes mean encrypted data doesn't live on your instance, it lives everywhere the people are you chat with. Another problem is what you see with bsky, where identifiers come with a domain name (like an email). IRC is also federated (sort of), and there's a long list of tired, age-old problems. The most common one is simple: different servers have different features, so you can't reliably "just use it" like you can with Signal.
        BlueTemplar 3y ago
        Because code is law, centralized systems that grow bigger than the polity they started in are inherently problematic. See Facebook in Burma/Myanmar as one recent infamous example.
        bastawhiz 3y ago
- danielheath 3y ago
  Given how many activists have used it in overthrowing dictatorial governments, self-sovereignty seems an odd choice of words to claim it doesn’t support.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Perhaps it was a bad choice of words. What I mean is that they say "you don't need to trust us", yet they require you to run through them. They refuse to build their system in a decentralized way, and the more that time goes by the more the decentralized alternatives are showing they are as secure as Signal without forcing us to accept their restrictions like mandatory use of phone numbers for authentication.
    - Barrin92 3y ago
      > "you don't need to trust us" you literally don't. It's a fully encrypted service. The literal purpose of encryption is to move data securely through insecure or even adversarial channels. Which you can verify, it's audited and open source. They refuse to build the app in a decentralized way because decentralization is an ideological obsession that is useless in this context, and because centralized organizations can actually ship polished software that works for normal people and move quickly.
      - lrvick 3y ago
        Centralized supply chain, and metadata protection is anchored on SGX. They can use their pick of SGX exploits to undermine the weak metadata protections and they (or apple/google) could, if pressured, ship tweaked versions of their centrally compiled apps to select targets that use "42" as the random number generator. No one would be the wiser. Signal is a money pit with a pile of single points of failure for no reason. Matrix is already proving federated end to end encryption can scale, particularly when users are free to pay for hosting their own servers as they like, which can also generate income.
        chimeracoder 3y ago
- illiac786 3y ago
  Just don't use it, don't generate cost for them, don't be trapped by them. Everyone wins.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    The 50 million using them all lose because they are locked into a monopolistic platform.
    - illiac786 3y ago
      they can communicate to anyone with WhatsApp, SMS, iMessage.... This is a closed system, not a monopoly.
    - bravoetch 3y ago
      Nobody is locked into Signal. It's free to use, and free to leave.
      - saagarjha 3y ago
        That’s not how platform lock-in works.
        8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
        You can export to markdown apparently. Who's locked in? It might be a pain to import that into any other app but I don't think any messaging app is going to make that easy. You still have all your data if you want to bail
        eviks 3y ago
        > pain That's how lock ins manifest themselves
        AniseAbyss 3y ago
        [dead]
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Yeah this is the one thing I have against signal and why I always advise against it. Their stance against third party clients and federation.
- Canada 3y ago
  Great, you go ahead and get all your friends in family using Matrix. I'll join you there when all that is sorted out and it's practical to get my lawyers and doctors and accountants and friends and family onboard. Until then, we'll keep using Signal.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    First, you talk like Signal never had any issue with usability or functionality, which is far from the truth. Signal amount of bugs and security issues with their client is notorious, and the insistence of requiring phone numbers is just a silly "let them have cake approach" that is conveniently ignored for too long. Second, are you hedging your bets and supporting Matrix or XMPP as well, or will you only encourage people to "donate" to the platform that you happen to have picked already?
    - Canada 3y ago
      Yes, I am encouraging people to donate to Signal because I prefer it. Why would I be soliciting donations for something I don't favor? If you want to contribute to something else go right ahead, but this is a thread about Signal's financial needs so it shouldn't surprise you that Signal supporters encourage other supporters to donate. I also use Matrix. Element has been pretty good for a few years now, but it's still not smooth enough for mainstream use. (Encryption state in chats gets messed up sometimes, for example. It feels like Signal 10 years ago, and it's had security issues in its client also) The Matrix protocol is also inferior to Signal in that all metadata is stored in cleartext on the server. You get to choose or run a server, but the protocol still leaks the user info to whoever runs the home server and to any foreign server that has a user in the same channel if you are using it in a federated context. Signal manages all of this by peer to peer messages where cleartext is only available to clients, which is really slick. XMPP is just dead. Forget about XMPP. Matrix is the clear leader in the federated messaging system category. I'd like to see Matrix displace things like Telegram, Discord, and Slack. I may donate to Matrix affiliated projects in the future, as I also donate to other open source projects from time to time, but I'm not going to promote any of those things in this thread.
- lemper 3y ago
  bro, you're working for one of chat programs, yes? never heard of communick before. won't ever use it. if people ask me about it, i will show them how a person related to communick behaves in public.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    You are creating an ad-hominem by thinking that I can not criticize Signal because I have a competing offer. And to add insult to injury, you seem to have a misconception of what Communick is. Communick is not "a chat program". Communick is a service provider, which promotes and works only with truly open protocols. There is no custom client or lock-in based feature that I have. This means that if you are my customer and you want to move out you are absolutely free to get your things and move to a different place instantly.
    - lemper 3y ago
      yes, it's an ad hominem. people need to know who are you and what incentives behind them. if you're from a competing provider, other will need to take that into account. also, if you want to peddle your stuff, make your own announcements or something.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        I'm somewhat flattered that you think Communick is a "competing provider" to Signal. Or anything, really. Maybe I will add that to the "testimonials" section of the website along with other nice things I get to hear from my 8 customers. Whether Communick exists or not, even if I close it down next week (because if we are being honest it is nothing but a money pit which I keep running out of spite and stubbornness, and unlike Signal I'm not panhandling for donations) my criticism of centralized messaging platforms would still stand: whether it's Signal, or WhatsApp, or FaceTime or Telegram... we should not be supporting any platform that centralizes all communications in one single place, no matter how "well intentioned" or even how "provably secure" it is.
Aachen 3y ago
20/month for every chat service I use is very steep. I'd be spending more on chat services than on mobile data + unlimited calling + landline + DSL + streaming services combined! They actual costs are apparently about 1 USD per year per user. I usually at least double (usually more) my incurred cost when the donation is optional, to cover for those who can't or won't pay, but paying 240× the cost price seems wasteful as well when there are other nonprofits that can do more good with every dollar you give them (be it solving poverty, climate change, whatever you find valuable) rather than one which has mostly fixed fees
- willsmith72 3y ago
  how many chat services do you use? and how many are making money off of you in other ways?
  - kojeovo 3y ago
    not who you replied to, but: - signal for family and some techy friends - whatsapp cuz some friends dont really get signal - imessage cuz some friends dont get whatsapp nor signal - viber cuz family across seas and that's whats popular there - slack with some friends cuz it's nice to have focused discussions in channels - discord cuz its better for gaming - ig messaging cuz i stay in touch with less close acquaintances and some friends that way, comment on their stories and chat about whats going on in the moment
    - Aachen 3y ago
      There's also Wire, IRC, Telegram, and Threema. SMS I also have a subscription on, but that feels different so I didn't include that in my count, and Keybase I haven't used in a while now but that might also be part of the list for some people
- Canada 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting every chat service get donations. I'm only giving to Signal, the rest of the chat services I have to use get 0. I'm donating more than my costs deliberately because I fully understand that most users are not going to contribute money, full stop. I need those users though, because they are the people I want to privately communicate with. So the obvious thing to do is pay for as many other users as I can. If there's 50M monthly active users, and if 1% of them are like me and highly value Signal, then each of us 1% users can pay $20/month and cover the entire operation. Then the contributions of the super rich donors can be saved to rebuild the war chest. $20/month is nothing to me considering the value I get. I understand that most won't feel that way, which is why I'm only appealing to those who do feel as I do to just get that recurring donation going now.
climb_stealth 3y ago
Same. I have been doing the recurring payment since they offered it. Even though I'm effectively only using it with my partner. But that is every day It feels good supporting something worthwhile.

by Canada 3y ago

rglullis 3y ago

I fail to understand the point of supporting an organization that is completely against self-sovereignty like Signal is. Why would I want to pay someone to develop something that traps me into their platform and does not offer a way out?

BlueTemplar 3y ago
Not completely ? Their server seems to be open source too now (with the exception of the spam filter) ?
- rglullis 3y ago
  Can I operate my own Signal server and talk with people on the "main" one?
  - Caligatio 3y ago
    You're moving the goal post from "self-sovereignty" to supports federation with an infinite number of servers. Nothing is stopping you from compiling your own Signal server and modifying a Signal client to use your server. Given that Signal is free as a service, supporting federation only increases their expenses.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Without federation, Signal is still working with the advantage of network effects. So an open source server is not enough of a way out. Element can do it for their Matrix servers. Process.one can do it for ejabberd. Prosody as well. Why can't Signal?
      - sowbug 3y ago
        Back to your original point: please don't support an organization that doesn't share important values of yours! That is absolutely your choice! You've named several products that share your values. Perhaps those would be a better fit if you were to donate.
      - growse 3y ago
        Because centralisation provides ecosystem agility, which they absolutely value as an upside. Find a way of doing post-quantum secure key exchange? Just roll it out to the server and all the clients essentially overnight. They've talked about this, a lot.
        rglullis 3y ago
        I'm well aware of their justifications. I'm also aware that centralization brings systemic risks, which they don't talk about. The internet would be a lot more efficient and able to evolve if we just had it controlled by one single entity like Google or Microsoft. Do you think is a good idea to do that? The economy would be a lot more efficient and allocation of resources could be a lot more fair if we could put it all in the hands of one single corporation or government. Do you think it's a good idea to do that? Agricultural output would improve significantly if all crops used the exact same genetic strain and if all soil was artificially managed. Do you think it's a good idea to do that? In case you are wondering, "ability to quickly roll out post-quantum key exchange" is waaaaay down the list of my worries compared to "facing a catastrophic Black Swan affecting all of the world's communications".
        growse 3y ago
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    Federation can only make security worse and I do not want it. You can have something else.
    - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
      Genuine question: Does Tor fall under the definition of federation? Either way, a Tor-like model would have security benefits over a centralized system like Signal, right?
      - bastawhiz 3y ago
        Tor is distributed, not federated. And it has drawbacks, like high latency and a lack of a centralized system for human-friendly names (because that would mean a system like DNS, which is centralized). As far as security goes, there's probably little benefit. E2EE doesn't get more secure because there's more encryption. The most comparable system to Tor that has practical properties I can think of is maybe ipfs, but nobody will store your encrypted chat blobs for you out of the goodness of their hearts. Ipfs also tends to have high latency. A slow system of uncooperative nodes isn't what you want your messaging app built on. A federated messaging system looks a lot more like Matrix. The obvious problems are that splitting users up over multiple nodes mean encrypted data doesn't live on your instance, it lives everywhere the people are you chat with. Another problem is what you see with bsky, where identifiers come with a domain name (like an email). IRC is also federated (sort of), and there's a long list of tired, age-old problems. The most common one is simple: different servers have different features, so you can't reliably "just use it" like you can with Signal.
        BlueTemplar 3y ago
        Because code is law, centralized systems that grow bigger than the polity they started in are inherently problematic. See Facebook in Burma/Myanmar as one recent infamous example.
        bastawhiz 3y ago
danielheath 3y ago
Given how many activists have used it in overthrowing dictatorial governments, self-sovereignty seems an odd choice of words to claim it doesn’t support.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Perhaps it was a bad choice of words. What I mean is that they say "you don't need to trust us", yet they require you to run through them. They refuse to build their system in a decentralized way, and the more that time goes by the more the decentralized alternatives are showing they are as secure as Signal without forcing us to accept their restrictions like mandatory use of phone numbers for authentication.
  - Barrin92 3y ago
    > "you don't need to trust us" you literally don't. It's a fully encrypted service. The literal purpose of encryption is to move data securely through insecure or even adversarial channels. Which you can verify, it's audited and open source. They refuse to build the app in a decentralized way because decentralization is an ideological obsession that is useless in this context, and because centralized organizations can actually ship polished software that works for normal people and move quickly.
    - lrvick 3y ago
      Centralized supply chain, and metadata protection is anchored on SGX. They can use their pick of SGX exploits to undermine the weak metadata protections and they (or apple/google) could, if pressured, ship tweaked versions of their centrally compiled apps to select targets that use "42" as the random number generator. No one would be the wiser. Signal is a money pit with a pile of single points of failure for no reason. Matrix is already proving federated end to end encryption can scale, particularly when users are free to pay for hosting their own servers as they like, which can also generate income.
      - chimeracoder 3y ago
illiac786 3y ago
Just don't use it, don't generate cost for them, don't be trapped by them. Everyone wins.
- rglullis 3y ago
  The 50 million using them all lose because they are locked into a monopolistic platform.
  - illiac786 3y ago
    they can communicate to anyone with WhatsApp, SMS, iMessage.... This is a closed system, not a monopoly.
  - bravoetch 3y ago
    Nobody is locked into Signal. It's free to use, and free to leave.
    - saagarjha 3y ago
      That’s not how platform lock-in works.
      - 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
        You can export to markdown apparently. Who's locked in? It might be a pain to import that into any other app but I don't think any messaging app is going to make that easy. You still have all your data if you want to bail
        eviks 3y ago
        > pain That's how lock ins manifest themselves
        AniseAbyss 3y ago
        [dead]
wkat4242 3y ago
Yeah this is the one thing I have against signal and why I always advise against it. Their stance against third party clients and federation.
Canada 3y ago
Great, you go ahead and get all your friends in family using Matrix. I'll join you there when all that is sorted out and it's practical to get my lawyers and doctors and accountants and friends and family onboard. Until then, we'll keep using Signal.
- rglullis 3y ago
  First, you talk like Signal never had any issue with usability or functionality, which is far from the truth. Signal amount of bugs and security issues with their client is notorious, and the insistence of requiring phone numbers is just a silly "let them have cake approach" that is conveniently ignored for too long. Second, are you hedging your bets and supporting Matrix or XMPP as well, or will you only encourage people to "donate" to the platform that you happen to have picked already?
  - Canada 3y ago
    Yes, I am encouraging people to donate to Signal because I prefer it. Why would I be soliciting donations for something I don't favor? If you want to contribute to something else go right ahead, but this is a thread about Signal's financial needs so it shouldn't surprise you that Signal supporters encourage other supporters to donate. I also use Matrix. Element has been pretty good for a few years now, but it's still not smooth enough for mainstream use. (Encryption state in chats gets messed up sometimes, for example. It feels like Signal 10 years ago, and it's had security issues in its client also) The Matrix protocol is also inferior to Signal in that all metadata is stored in cleartext on the server. You get to choose or run a server, but the protocol still leaks the user info to whoever runs the home server and to any foreign server that has a user in the same channel if you are using it in a federated context. Signal manages all of this by peer to peer messages where cleartext is only available to clients, which is really slick. XMPP is just dead. Forget about XMPP. Matrix is the clear leader in the federated messaging system category. I'd like to see Matrix displace things like Telegram, Discord, and Slack. I may donate to Matrix affiliated projects in the future, as I also donate to other open source projects from time to time, but I'm not going to promote any of those things in this thread.
lemper 3y ago
bro, you're working for one of chat programs, yes? never heard of communick before. won't ever use it. if people ask me about it, i will show them how a person related to communick behaves in public.
- rglullis 3y ago
  You are creating an ad-hominem by thinking that I can not criticize Signal because I have a competing offer. And to add insult to injury, you seem to have a misconception of what Communick is. Communick is not "a chat program". Communick is a service provider, which promotes and works only with truly open protocols. There is no custom client or lock-in based feature that I have. This means that if you are my customer and you want to move out you are absolutely free to get your things and move to a different place instantly.
  - lemper 3y ago
    yes, it's an ad hominem. people need to know who are you and what incentives behind them. if you're from a competing provider, other will need to take that into account. also, if you want to peddle your stuff, make your own announcements or something.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      I'm somewhat flattered that you think Communick is a "competing provider" to Signal. Or anything, really. Maybe I will add that to the "testimonials" section of the website along with other nice things I get to hear from my 8 customers. Whether Communick exists or not, even if I close it down next week (because if we are being honest it is nothing but a money pit which I keep running out of spite and stubbornness, and unlike Signal I'm not panhandling for donations) my criticism of centralized messaging platforms would still stand: whether it's Signal, or WhatsApp, or FaceTime or Telegram... we should not be supporting any platform that centralizes all communications in one single place, no matter how "well intentioned" or even how "provably secure" it is.

Aachen 3y ago

20/month for every chat service I use is very steep. I'd be spending more on chat services than on mobile data + unlimited calling + landline + DSL + streaming services combined! They actual costs are apparently about 1 USD per year per user. I usually at least double (usually more) my incurred cost when the donation is optional, to cover for those who can't or won't pay, but paying 240× the cost price seems wasteful as well when there are other nonprofits that can do more good with every dollar you give them (be it solving poverty, climate change, whatever you find valuable) rather than one which has mostly fixed fees

willsmith72 3y ago
how many chat services do you use? and how many are making money off of you in other ways?
- kojeovo 3y ago
  not who you replied to, but: - signal for family and some techy friends - whatsapp cuz some friends dont really get signal - imessage cuz some friends dont get whatsapp nor signal - viber cuz family across seas and that's whats popular there - slack with some friends cuz it's nice to have focused discussions in channels - discord cuz its better for gaming - ig messaging cuz i stay in touch with less close acquaintances and some friends that way, comment on their stories and chat about whats going on in the moment
  - Aachen 3y ago
    There's also Wire, IRC, Telegram, and Threema. SMS I also have a subscription on, but that feels different so I didn't include that in my count, and Keybase I haven't used in a while now but that might also be part of the list for some people
Canada 3y ago
I'm not suggesting every chat service get donations. I'm only giving to Signal, the rest of the chat services I have to use get 0. I'm donating more than my costs deliberately because I fully understand that most users are not going to contribute money, full stop. I need those users though, because they are the people I want to privately communicate with. So the obvious thing to do is pay for as many other users as I can. If there's 50M monthly active users, and if 1% of them are like me and highly value Signal, then each of us 1% users can pay $20/month and cover the entire operation. Then the contributions of the super rich donors can be saved to rebuild the war chest. $20/month is nothing to me considering the value I get. I understand that most won't feel that way, which is why I'm only appealing to those who do feel as I do to just get that recurring donation going now.

climb_stealth 3y ago

Same. I have been doing the recurring payment since they offered it. Even though I'm effectively only using it with my partner. But that is every day It feels good supporting something worthwhile.