4 ms·

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 mov

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.
        troupo 2y ago
        > That depends on your definition of decentralization. Decentralization literally means "not centralized". If you have a single centralized entity serving all your messages through a set of centralized servers, it makes the setup what? > 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. Yes, they do, and it's centralized. What exactly makes you think otherwise?
      - alternatex 2y ago
        That's not what decentralized means though. This whole comment thread is unclear on whether decentralization or encryption is what's desired.
        afiori 2y ago
        That is because people want decentralized e2ee multi-device chats without manual key management, which afaik is not really possible

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.
        troupo 2y ago
        > That depends on your definition of decentralization. Decentralization literally means "not centralized". If you have a single centralized entity serving all your messages through a set of centralized servers, it makes the setup what? > 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. Yes, they do, and it's centralized. What exactly makes you think otherwise?
    - alternatex 2y ago
      That's not what decentralized means though. This whole comment thread is unclear on whether decentralization or encryption is what's desired.
      - afiori 2y ago
        That is because people want decentralized e2ee multi-device chats without manual key management, which afaik is not really possible