3 ms·

Not completely ? Their server seems to be open source too now (with the exception of the spam filter) ?

by BlueTemplar 3y ago

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
        Signal is so far from being a monopoly that runs "all the world's communications" that these comparisons are essentially meaningless. There's plenty of diversity in the messaging space. Decide your values, choose your compromises, pick your platform. Simple.
        BlueTemplar 3y ago
        Some people avoid platforms out of principle. Look up «protocols, not platforms» if you have never heard of it.
- 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

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
        Signal is so far from being a monopoly that runs "all the world's communications" that these comparisons are essentially meaningless. There's plenty of diversity in the messaging space. Decide your values, choose your compromises, pick your platform. Simple.
        BlueTemplar 3y ago
        Some people avoid platforms out of principle. Look up «protocols, not platforms» if you have never heard of it.
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