3 ms·
I mean, you describe this as a "hit piece" but then go on to agree with most of the points (perhaps disagreeing that it is a problem, but not disagreeing with t
by cyphar 1y ago
I mean, you describe this as a "hit piece" but then go on to agree with most of the points (perhaps disagreeing that it is a problem, but not disagreeing with the factual basis of the statement) or point to incredibly recent developments which you say resolve those issues.
Matrix has been in development since 2014 (which is around when I first started using it) so pointing to solutions only just implemented in 2024 or "still being addressed" in 2025 as proof that this is a "hit piece" seems disingenuous to me (especially since this blog post is from 2023, and thus was correct at the time of writing according to your own comment). I understand that you are protective of your project, but having read your comments over the past decade, it seems that you feel the need to reply somewhat dismissively to any criticism.
I don't want to rehash the entire E2EE history here, but that decade-long saga has always bothered me.
- Arathorn 1y agoI call it a hit piece because it starts off with demonstrably bogus complaints (“if you ask servers to delete data they may ignore you!”). The fact I then went through point by point to acknowledge that a few of the other points are still relevant shows that I’m not dismissing it. Yes, I’m protective of the project, but I’m also irritated at folks who push fake information against it (especially if it’s padding out valid points). p.s. sorry if this comes across as dismissive of your complaint O:-)