5 ms·

This has led to all sorts of opinions on the thread, which are all very interesting! I do agree that just accepting this is not the way to go, and also that sl

This has led to all sorts of opinions on the thread, which are all very interesting! I do agree that just accepting this is not the way to go, and also that slowly making changes is a valid approach. I do want to qualify though, for those who aren't in a WhatsApp-heavy country, how things work. I looked at my latest messages and beyond all my friends and all my family, I have my accountant, my landlord, my barber, HOA, groups for birthday party invites (where you're asked to confirm attendance), a painter, etc. In many restaurants, if you want a reservation, WhatsApp is the only way. For people who work in Brazil (I work remotely for a company abroad), a lot of work communication happens on WhatsApp. Again, this is not to say that not dong anything is the way to go! But I think abroad some people don't understand the extent to which WhatsApp is used here. Someone mentioned iMessage for instance and I don't think I know a single person who uses it. Most Brazilians have Android phones too.

palata 1y ago
I understand that WhatsApp may be necessary to talk to businesses (because Signal didn't develop that, and I honestly don't think they should). But what would prevent people from using WhatsApp to talk to businesses and Signal to talk to friends? I have been using multiple channels with friends forever: phone call, mail, email, MSN Messenger, Facebook, IRC, ICQ, WhatsApp, Threema, Signal, Slack, Discord, Matrix, ... What sucks is when I can't reach a friend. But I never saw it as a problem that I had too many choices to talk to them :-). I don't really understand this "It has to have 100% of the market" stance. I don't want monopolies, I don't really understand why someone would say "this monopoly sucks, but I really want a monopoly so I won't ever change unless it is for a better monopoly".
- saurik 1y ago
  > (because Signal didn't develop that, and I honestly don't think they should) FWIW, as far as I ever could tell, Facebook did this correctly: the only real thing is letting a business have an account without a phone number; they then provide the software you can run on your server to be a WhatsApp client, so all of your user's messages are then end-to-end encrypted to your business. Yes: later on they decided they'd get in the business of offering a "hosted client"--which meant that, technically, if you used that service, they could see the messages, which caused a change to their terms of service, as a blanket statement that Facebook can't ever see messages isn't technically true anymore, which Signal threw a ton of FUD at :/--but anyone could have offered that service before (and could right now also for Signal).
- stuporglue 1y ago
  For 1:1 conversations I think you're right. Having multiple channels for communication is fine. Where it breaks down is for group conversations. If Person A won't use Signal and Person B won't use WhatsApp, you can't easily have group communications. And it only gets worse as the number of people in the group goes up.
  - palata 1y ago
    In my experience, people who use Signal usually also have WhatsApp. It's really mostly that many people absolutely refuse to install Signal on their phone. Like they have all sorts of apps (including social networks that are sometimes downright malware), but they will fight against Signal for some reason I don't understand.
    - oqy 1y ago
      The reason is simple: Comfort. They simply prefer not to have the mental load of multiple channels, albeit at some cost. That's the appeal of software like Beeper&Co.

palata 1y ago

I understand that WhatsApp may be necessary to talk to businesses (because Signal didn't develop that, and I honestly don't think they should). But what would prevent people from using WhatsApp to talk to businesses and Signal to talk to friends? I have been using multiple channels with friends forever: phone call, mail, email, MSN Messenger, Facebook, IRC, ICQ, WhatsApp, Threema, Signal, Slack, Discord, Matrix, ... What sucks is when I can't reach a friend. But I never saw it as a problem that I had too many choices to talk to them :-). I don't really understand this "It has to have 100% of the market" stance. I don't want monopolies, I don't really understand why someone would say "this monopoly sucks, but I really want a monopoly so I won't ever change unless it is for a better monopoly".

saurik 1y ago
> (because Signal didn't develop that, and I honestly don't think they should) FWIW, as far as I ever could tell, Facebook did this correctly: the only real thing is letting a business have an account without a phone number; they then provide the software you can run on your server to be a WhatsApp client, so all of your user's messages are then end-to-end encrypted to your business. Yes: later on they decided they'd get in the business of offering a "hosted client"--which meant that, technically, if you used that service, they could see the messages, which caused a change to their terms of service, as a blanket statement that Facebook can't ever see messages isn't technically true anymore, which Signal threw a ton of FUD at :/--but anyone could have offered that service before (and could right now also for Signal).
stuporglue 1y ago
For 1:1 conversations I think you're right. Having multiple channels for communication is fine. Where it breaks down is for group conversations. If Person A won't use Signal and Person B won't use WhatsApp, you can't easily have group communications. And it only gets worse as the number of people in the group goes up.
- palata 1y ago
  In my experience, people who use Signal usually also have WhatsApp. It's really mostly that many people absolutely refuse to install Signal on their phone. Like they have all sorts of apps (including social networks that are sometimes downright malware), but they will fight against Signal for some reason I don't understand.
  - oqy 1y ago
    The reason is simple: Comfort. They simply prefer not to have the mental load of multiple channels, albeit at some cost. That's the appeal of software like Beeper&Co.