4 ms·

These proposals are only possible due to the centralized nature of current messaging services. Signal has historically opposed any efforts at federation or dec

These proposals are only possible due to the centralized nature of current messaging services. Signal has historically opposed any efforts at federation or decentralization. I wonder whether this could be the kick in the pants to get them to reconsider that position, or if we'll have to build something decentralized without them if this passes.

crop_rotation 2y ago
Nobody uses decentralised messaging systems. Even email which was decentralized is predominantly 4-5 big companies. And moxie made some very good arguments on why email is still lacking any new features like E2E while Whatsapp can add it very quickly. Then there is matrix, and trying to use it is an exercise in frustration even for tech users (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561), for non tech it is a non starter. Not to mention the features people expect from their messaging apps simply won't work in decentralized messaging systems (e.g delete for all, read receipts which are symmetric).
cedws 2y ago
Sure, it's possible, Tox did it already. People don't want decentralised systems because they're not convenient enough. Your average user does not know what a peer or private key is. How many Signal users even verify their contacts' fingerprints? And when operating within the confines of mobile walled gardens, you need centralisation somewhere. Somebody needs to publish an app, and the publisher will be beholden to the same laws as anyone.
- greyface- 2y ago
  Everything you wrote is currently true. That said, Signal can no longer claim to be privacy-focused if they submit to these demands, and if they refuse (as they've indicated is their plan), they'll lose a huge user segment, and the network effects that keep them dominant will weaken. Something will have to change.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Signal aims to be as secure as possible while still being usable. Under those constraints, it's doing really well, as I have friends and family who use it. In contrast, not a single person I've ever met IRL uses Matrix.
    - greyface- 2y ago
      > Under those constraints, it's doing really well Yes. Currently. If all non-sideloading EU users get locked out, can you really continue to say this?
      - stavros 2y ago
        No, but making Signal decentralized won't change anything. It'll still just be banned from the app stores, and whether it uses a central server or not won't matter at all.
        greyface- 2y ago
        Centralization isn't just about the network architecture. A decentralized system wouldn't have a single organization or app whose neck can be strangled by the state or Apple/Google. I acknowledge that the current app store gatekeeper model makes this difficult to implement or even imagine. I also acknowledge that this is difficult to reconcile with the Signal Foundation's implicit 'institutional imperative' to continue existing as a central supporting party. I understand the "ecosystem is moving" usability / anti-ossification argument for centralization; it's just that the cost of centralization, when operating under the authority of someone who opposes privacy, is privacy.
        Krasnol 2y ago
        I don't understand what you want to say here. A decentralized app will come under the same pressure from lawmakers as a centralized. Other ways of delivery have to be established for both. So in the end, you can just ignore that argument. What remains is that Signal is more popular with the average person who needs safe messaging. A fact that will remain even if this law passes. PS. https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ it updates without play store access too.

crop_rotation 2y ago

Nobody uses decentralised messaging systems. Even email which was decentralized is predominantly 4-5 big companies. And moxie made some very good arguments on why email is still lacking any new features like E2E while Whatsapp can add it very quickly. Then there is matrix, and trying to use it is an exercise in frustration even for tech users (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561), for non tech it is a non starter. Not to mention the features people expect from their messaging apps simply won't work in decentralized messaging systems (e.g delete for all, read receipts which are symmetric).

cedws 2y ago

Sure, it's possible, Tox did it already. People don't want decentralised systems because they're not convenient enough. Your average user does not know what a peer or private key is. How many Signal users even verify their contacts' fingerprints? And when operating within the confines of mobile walled gardens, you need centralisation somewhere. Somebody needs to publish an app, and the publisher will be beholden to the same laws as anyone.

greyface- 2y ago
Everything you wrote is currently true. That said, Signal can no longer claim to be privacy-focused if they submit to these demands, and if they refuse (as they've indicated is their plan), they'll lose a huge user segment, and the network effects that keep them dominant will weaken. Something will have to change.
- stavros 2y ago
  Signal aims to be as secure as possible while still being usable. Under those constraints, it's doing really well, as I have friends and family who use it. In contrast, not a single person I've ever met IRL uses Matrix.
  - greyface- 2y ago
    > Under those constraints, it's doing really well Yes. Currently. If all non-sideloading EU users get locked out, can you really continue to say this?
    - stavros 2y ago
      No, but making Signal decentralized won't change anything. It'll still just be banned from the app stores, and whether it uses a central server or not won't matter at all.
      - greyface- 2y ago
        Centralization isn't just about the network architecture. A decentralized system wouldn't have a single organization or app whose neck can be strangled by the state or Apple/Google. I acknowledge that the current app store gatekeeper model makes this difficult to implement or even imagine. I also acknowledge that this is difficult to reconcile with the Signal Foundation's implicit 'institutional imperative' to continue existing as a central supporting party. I understand the "ecosystem is moving" usability / anti-ossification argument for centralization; it's just that the cost of centralization, when operating under the authority of someone who opposes privacy, is privacy.
        Krasnol 2y ago
        I don't understand what you want to say here. A decentralized app will come under the same pressure from lawmakers as a centralized. Other ways of delivery have to be established for both. So in the end, you can just ignore that argument. What remains is that Signal is more popular with the average person who needs safe messaging. A fact that will remain even if this law passes. PS. https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ it updates without play store access too.