5 ms·

It's a stop-gap because people want DMs and implementing them correctly (decentralized, e2e encrypted, etc.) is non-trivial. Rushing e2e encryption is not a goo

It's a stop-gap because people want DMs and implementing them correctly (decentralized, e2e encrypted, etc.) is non-trivial. Rushing e2e encryption is not a good idea (and no, you can't just slap on matrix/signal and call it a day). The alternatives are to: 1. Wait a bit longer for something half-baked that appears to meet the goals (i.e., something you're going to regret but will be unable to replace). 2. Wait even longer for something perfect. By making the protocol centralized and stupid-simple, it's also stupid-simple to replace in when everyone is done painting the perfect bikeshed.

pavel_lishin 2y ago
> By making the protocol centralized and stupid-simple, it's also stupid-simple to replace in when everyone is done painting the perfect bikeshed. But we all know that the more temporary the fix, the more permanent it becomes.
- stebalien 2y ago
  In my experience, temporary fixes are more likely to "stick" the better they are at addressing the problem. The fact that nobody is satisfied with this fix is a good sign.
- MyFedora 2y ago
  There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.
neiman 2y ago
> By making the protocol centralized and stupid-simple, it's also stupid-simple to replace in when everyone is done painting the perfect bikeshed. Can you recall any example of anyone replacing a centralized protocol with a decentralized one?
- wmf 2y ago
  Bluesky.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Threads sits on top of the Instagram infrastructure. And they have added ActivityPub integration moving everything closer to decentralisation. Given how much of a win-win for Meta it is it wouldn't surprise me to see all their networks move in that direction.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > Given how much of a win-win for Meta How much? > to see all their networks move in that direction. Why would they? What exactly will the move entail?
    - threeseed 2y ago
      a) They can monetise content that didn't originate on their platform. b) It shifts regulators attention from them to closed platforms like X. c) They can leverage their advantages e.g. ad serving, safety to push competitors into niches.
      - troupo 2y ago
        > They can monetise content that didn't originate on their platform. They have been doing it for years. > It shifts regulators attention from them to closed platforms like X. It doesn't. Threads is just as closed (despite integrating an open protocol), and is still subject to the same scrutiny and provisions as the rest of Meta's products. > They can leverage their advantages e.g. ad serving, safety to push competitors into niches. So, let me get it straight. Facebook gained so much from adopting a decentralized protocol so they will inevitably move in the same direction that: - they will use it to remain the only centralized service? - they will use it to do the same thing they do before (serve ads, collect user data etc.) but somehow will be absolved of regulations and scrutiny?
- ncallaway 2y ago
  Didn’t Bluesky ship centralized, and then later replaced the centralized protocol with the decentralized at proto?
  - neiman 2y ago
    Did they? Heh, I didn't know that. But I thought they launched with the AT protocol already, no?
    - ncallaway 2y ago
      They did, which is why it seems like a relevant example to your question. They shipped centralized, and have already replaced the centralized service they shipped with a decentralized service.
- mgraczyk 2y ago
  Facebook messenger is not completely decentralized, but it is E2E encrypted now after years of struggle with governments and UX. It's definitely possible to move centralized systems to be more decentralized.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    How is that an answer to the question?
    - mgraczyk 2y ago
      It's an example of somebody replacing a centralized protocol with a more decentralized one. It's also one of the biggest direct messaging platforms in the world with E2E encryption.
      - troupo 2y ago
        How is it decentralized? It's running from and through Facebook servers.
        mgraczyk 2y ago
        Facebook cannot read your messages, so it is more decentralized than a system that stores messages in plaintext (or stores the decryption keys).
        DaSHacka 2y ago
        Seems like its simply a more private option it being encrypted but routed through a single companies servers means its just as centralized as if it were unencrypted though
        mgraczyk 2y ago
        That depends on your definition of decentralization. Because of the way most people set up their apps, almost all Matrix users and ~all Signal users are using a centralized app under this definition.
o11c 2y ago
e2e encryption is a net loss for a lot of use cases. Particularly, most DMs are spam in my experience. Spam prevention is much harder if the server can't see the message. Spam reporting can be done with sufficient effort, but stopping the known spam from reaching the user in the first place is impossible (the closest you can get is a client-side scan before actually showing the message to the user, which requires downloading the whole message just to show "number of incoming messages" indicator or else having the indicator lie). And of course, E2EE is a lie if you're visiting a website anyway.
- derefr 2y ago
  It is my understanding that many E2EE chat systems won't actually E2EE your initial message to someone you aren't already mutual in-app contacts with. Either E2EE is something you "upgrade" an existing conversation into (only after both sides consent to the conversation); or E2EE is something that only inherently establishes once both sides have sent one-another a message; or E2EE is something you can only enable before you start a conversation, if you already have the other person's public key (which you only get when you request to add them as a contact, and they accept.) I think schemes like this balance privacy with spam-prevention quite well: privacy-conscious people can explicitly add each-other before either person says anything / can send intentional small-talk as pairing messages; while everyone else gets the benefit of a central spam-filter sitting between them and messages from strangers.
noman-land 2y ago
Except they'll never replace it because they'll be too busy making some other feature stupid simple by centralizing it and we'll be back to centralized social media.

pavel_lishin 2y ago

> By making the protocol centralized and stupid-simple, it's also stupid-simple to replace in when everyone is done painting the perfect bikeshed. But we all know that the more temporary the fix, the more permanent it becomes.

stebalien 2y ago
In my experience, temporary fixes are more likely to "stick" the better they are at addressing the problem. The fact that nobody is satisfied with this fix is a good sign.
MyFedora 2y ago
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.

neiman 2y ago

> By making the protocol centralized and stupid-simple, it's also stupid-simple to replace in when everyone is done painting the perfect bikeshed. Can you recall any example of anyone replacing a centralized protocol with a decentralized one?

wmf 2y ago
Bluesky.
threeseed 2y ago
Threads sits on top of the Instagram infrastructure. And they have added ActivityPub integration moving everything closer to decentralisation. Given how much of a win-win for Meta it is it wouldn't surprise me to see all their networks move in that direction.
- troupo 2y ago
  > Given how much of a win-win for Meta How much? > to see all their networks move in that direction. Why would they? What exactly will the move entail?
  - threeseed 2y ago
    a) They can monetise content that didn't originate on their platform. b) It shifts regulators attention from them to closed platforms like X. c) They can leverage their advantages e.g. ad serving, safety to push competitors into niches.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > They can monetise content that didn't originate on their platform. They have been doing it for years. > It shifts regulators attention from them to closed platforms like X. It doesn't. Threads is just as closed (despite integrating an open protocol), and is still subject to the same scrutiny and provisions as the rest of Meta's products. > They can leverage their advantages e.g. ad serving, safety to push competitors into niches. So, let me get it straight. Facebook gained so much from adopting a decentralized protocol so they will inevitably move in the same direction that: - they will use it to remain the only centralized service? - they will use it to do the same thing they do before (serve ads, collect user data etc.) but somehow will be absolved of regulations and scrutiny?
ncallaway 2y ago
Didn’t Bluesky ship centralized, and then later replaced the centralized protocol with the decentralized at proto?
- neiman 2y ago
  Did they? Heh, I didn't know that. But I thought they launched with the AT protocol already, no?
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    They did, which is why it seems like a relevant example to your question. They shipped centralized, and have already replaced the centralized service they shipped with a decentralized service.
mgraczyk 2y ago
Facebook messenger is not completely decentralized, but it is E2E encrypted now after years of struggle with governments and UX. It's definitely possible to move centralized systems to be more decentralized.
- rglullis 2y ago
  How is that an answer to the question?
  - mgraczyk 2y ago
    It's an example of somebody replacing a centralized protocol with a more decentralized one. It's also one of the biggest direct messaging platforms in the world with E2E encryption.
    - troupo 2y ago
      How is it decentralized? It's running from and through Facebook servers.
      - mgraczyk 2y ago
        Facebook cannot read your messages, so it is more decentralized than a system that stores messages in plaintext (or stores the decryption keys).
        DaSHacka 2y ago
        Seems like its simply a more private option it being encrypted but routed through a single companies servers means its just as centralized as if it were unencrypted though
        mgraczyk 2y ago
        That depends on your definition of decentralization. Because of the way most people set up their apps, almost all Matrix users and ~all Signal users are using a centralized app under this definition.

o11c 2y ago

e2e encryption is a net loss for a lot of use cases. Particularly, most DMs are spam in my experience. Spam prevention is much harder if the server can't see the message. Spam reporting can be done with sufficient effort, but stopping the known spam from reaching the user in the first place is impossible (the closest you can get is a client-side scan before actually showing the message to the user, which requires downloading the whole message just to show "number of incoming messages" indicator or else having the indicator lie). And of course, E2EE is a lie if you're visiting a website anyway.

derefr 2y ago
It is my understanding that many E2EE chat systems won't actually E2EE your initial message to someone you aren't already mutual in-app contacts with. Either E2EE is something you "upgrade" an existing conversation into (only after both sides consent to the conversation); or E2EE is something that only inherently establishes once both sides have sent one-another a message; or E2EE is something you can only enable before you start a conversation, if you already have the other person's public key (which you only get when you request to add them as a contact, and they accept.) I think schemes like this balance privacy with spam-prevention quite well: privacy-conscious people can explicitly add each-other before either person says anything / can send intentional small-talk as pairing messages; while everyone else gets the benefit of a central spam-filter sitting between them and messages from strangers.

noman-land 2y ago

Except they'll never replace it because they'll be too busy making some other feature stupid simple by centralizing it and we'll be back to centralized social media.