5 ms·

Simplex is developed by a person who has a rather difficult view of the world. I would not recommend using it as long as this person is responsible for it.

sandblast 10mo ago
I don't know what you're mentioning, but let's not forget that whatever view he might have, it changes nothing in the technology he creates. It's open source, it's auditable, and the code does not have worldviews of its own. Your comment promotes cancel-culture, and as filthy as it is in general, it's even more so in the technology world. Don't do it. Please.
- jijijijij 10mo ago
  As long as you are not auditing every bit of code you run yourself AND are sufficiently knowledgeable to detect even obfuscated malicious code, you need some basis of trust. Evident world views far off reason, reality, compassion and pragmatic self-regulation, don't speak for a stable, predictable and reasonable personality. If a person thinks some humans deserve less rights than others, how could you trust any update to not reflect this world view? Additionally you may be becoming technologically dependent on a person whose actions may be detrimental to your safety or wellbeing in other parts of your life. You may also just don't like to promote this person's work. It's fair to inform others about the person behind the software they are running. Everybody can make their own informed choices.
  - sandblast 10mo ago
    And the appropriate basis of trust in the technology world would be source code audits, not scraping some individual's Twitter posts. If the users' communications are encrypted — which they are — there is no way for the creator to "reflect his world view", whatever it might be, in the form of undermining the security or privacy for some part of the user base.
    - jijijijij 10mo ago
      You want to audit every update? Are you going to pay for it? Is this relevant for the app discussed? Because until there are other means of forming trust available, everyone only got the vibe check. Some perfect world scenario ain't gonna cut it.
      - sandblast 10mo ago
        I'll try from another angle: If I wanted to make a honeypot that undermines users' privacy and anonymity, I would make sure to be as nice to everyone as possible. The "vibe check" is irrelevant, the false positives are far too common.
        jijijijij 10mo ago
        Yes, the vibe check can fail too, but that's no argument to ignore crazy. You do you. As I said, we all should be able to make informed choices as we please.
    - jrflowers 10mo ago
      I like your point that if a developer is a vocal neo nazi then only people capable of regularly conducting their own thorough code reviews should rely on the products that they make. I agree with you that regular folks that can’t do code audits should not trust neo nazis with their private communications. It is good to know that we’re on the same page about not implicitly trusting the simplex code
      - sandblast 10mo ago
        This is not my point. Trusting someone else's code audit is infinitely more valuable than trusting any "vibe check", since it touches the actual subject matter.
        jijijijij 10mo ago
        How do you derive trust for the auditing? Anyway, since we're talking concrete software, could you point to such code reviews from vibe-independent auditors for continuous verifiable simplex builds targeting common communication platforms? If not, your point is moot for the subject at hand. Decisions have to be made on the basis of reality not cozy fantasies. I am not sure I run a single piece of software where this is done. Sporadic audits tend to bring evidence of soundness and security, not continuous absence of malicious functionality.
- srean 10mo ago
  In an ideal world yes, what you say is true. However, human being human beings, they find it very hard to sequester their beliefs, emotions from their work. It's a common human failing. Often they are not even aware of it. Having politically or socially divisive beliefs publicly also makes such a person a target of coercion and encouragement to yield to a "harmless" temptation by way of appropriate 3 letter like agencies. To ensure that this does not happen will require maintaining a paranoid level of vigilance on the code all the time. That is a lot of work, very expensive and is unlikely to happen. Perhaps not fair to his creation, but that's just how it goes. My comment is at a high level. This is the first time I heard of Simplex chat, so I don't even know what views its developer has.
oneonetwo 10mo ago
[dead]
guytv 10mo ago
> Simplex is developed by a person who has a rather difficult view of the world. couldn't find it. what's his view of the world?
- auntiefah 10mo ago
  Antivax neo-Nazi.
  - sandblast 10mo ago
    Source on the "neo-Nazism"? And you might want to tell us how this affects the privacy or security of SimpleX why you're at it.
    - auntiefah 10mo ago
      Holding and openly expressing these abhorrent views probably encourages him to focus on security and privacy more than others. But it does risk his app being associated with that and therefore discouraging everyday users. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up as the next EncroChat.
      - sandblast 10mo ago
        Focusing on security and privacy is great, but I expected some downsides. I'm glad you decided to emphasize the dedication of the creator of SimpleX instead. EncroChat was not open-source, so it was much easier to be infiltrated.
      - johnisgood 10mo ago
        You can self-host SimpleX and it is open source, otherwise I have no idea what you mean by associated with his views. If the project is as promised, then why would you care about the views of the developer?
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
Xiol 10mo ago
At first I was like, how difficult? That is quite the Twitter timeline.
- bjoli 10mo ago
  I came here to write just that. It is all over the place as well. I find it a bit disturbing with regard to how one defines struggle against power. What does those views mean with regards to the long term priorities of the software?
  - sandblast 10mo ago
    Oh, it's very simple: those views mean nothing. Unless you can point to the part of the source code where they are expressed and explain us how this part undermines the project's technological goals.
- sandblast 10mo ago
  If you're so eager on encouraging cancel-culture, would you be so kind to elaborate on why exactly you want to cancel this programmer instead of just vaguely pointing in the direction of a closed platform?
  - kamranjon 10mo ago
    Here is perhaps a simpler metric. If the creator of a security focused software is this awful at protecting their own anonymity- why would I trust them in the first place? If they are revealing their identity so that we can vet their credentials, then it makes sense that they would want us to judge them based on their online persona. If we believe all of this to be true - it’s not really cancel culture, it’s by design that the creator of SimpleX has implemented this filtering mechanism for their users.
    - sandblast 10mo ago
      False dychotomy — there are more options than "protecting anonymity" and "revealing identity so that credentials can be vetted". He just writes what he believes under his own name, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with establishing his authority.
baxuz 10mo ago
https://xcancel.com/epoberezkin https://xcancel.com/epoberezkin This guy?

sandblast 10mo ago

I don't know what you're mentioning, but let's not forget that whatever view he might have, it changes nothing in the technology he creates. It's open source, it's auditable, and the code does not have worldviews of its own. Your comment promotes cancel-culture, and as filthy as it is in general, it's even more so in the technology world. Don't do it. Please.

jijijijij 10mo ago
As long as you are not auditing every bit of code you run yourself AND are sufficiently knowledgeable to detect even obfuscated malicious code, you need some basis of trust. Evident world views far off reason, reality, compassion and pragmatic self-regulation, don't speak for a stable, predictable and reasonable personality. If a person thinks some humans deserve less rights than others, how could you trust any update to not reflect this world view? Additionally you may be becoming technologically dependent on a person whose actions may be detrimental to your safety or wellbeing in other parts of your life. You may also just don't like to promote this person's work. It's fair to inform others about the person behind the software they are running. Everybody can make their own informed choices.
- sandblast 10mo ago
  And the appropriate basis of trust in the technology world would be source code audits, not scraping some individual's Twitter posts. If the users' communications are encrypted — which they are — there is no way for the creator to "reflect his world view", whatever it might be, in the form of undermining the security or privacy for some part of the user base.
  - jijijijij 10mo ago
    You want to audit every update? Are you going to pay for it? Is this relevant for the app discussed? Because until there are other means of forming trust available, everyone only got the vibe check. Some perfect world scenario ain't gonna cut it.
    - sandblast 10mo ago
      I'll try from another angle: If I wanted to make a honeypot that undermines users' privacy and anonymity, I would make sure to be as nice to everyone as possible. The "vibe check" is irrelevant, the false positives are far too common.
      - jijijijij 10mo ago
        Yes, the vibe check can fail too, but that's no argument to ignore crazy. You do you. As I said, we all should be able to make informed choices as we please.
  - jrflowers 10mo ago
    I like your point that if a developer is a vocal neo nazi then only people capable of regularly conducting their own thorough code reviews should rely on the products that they make. I agree with you that regular folks that can’t do code audits should not trust neo nazis with their private communications. It is good to know that we’re on the same page about not implicitly trusting the simplex code
    - sandblast 10mo ago
      This is not my point. Trusting someone else's code audit is infinitely more valuable than trusting any "vibe check", since it touches the actual subject matter.
      - jijijijij 10mo ago
        How do you derive trust for the auditing? Anyway, since we're talking concrete software, could you point to such code reviews from vibe-independent auditors for continuous verifiable simplex builds targeting common communication platforms? If not, your point is moot for the subject at hand. Decisions have to be made on the basis of reality not cozy fantasies. I am not sure I run a single piece of software where this is done. Sporadic audits tend to bring evidence of soundness and security, not continuous absence of malicious functionality.
srean 10mo ago
In an ideal world yes, what you say is true. However, human being human beings, they find it very hard to sequester their beliefs, emotions from their work. It's a common human failing. Often they are not even aware of it. Having politically or socially divisive beliefs publicly also makes such a person a target of coercion and encouragement to yield to a "harmless" temptation by way of appropriate 3 letter like agencies. To ensure that this does not happen will require maintaining a paranoid level of vigilance on the code all the time. That is a lot of work, very expensive and is unlikely to happen. Perhaps not fair to his creation, but that's just how it goes. My comment is at a high level. This is the first time I heard of Simplex chat, so I don't even know what views its developer has.

oneonetwo 10mo ago

[dead]

guytv 10mo ago

> Simplex is developed by a person who has a rather difficult view of the world. couldn't find it. what's his view of the world?

auntiefah 10mo ago
Antivax neo-Nazi.
- sandblast 10mo ago
  Source on the "neo-Nazism"? And you might want to tell us how this affects the privacy or security of SimpleX why you're at it.
  - auntiefah 10mo ago
    Holding and openly expressing these abhorrent views probably encourages him to focus on security and privacy more than others. But it does risk his app being associated with that and therefore discouraging everyday users. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up as the next EncroChat.
    - sandblast 10mo ago
      Focusing on security and privacy is great, but I expected some downsides. I'm glad you decided to emphasize the dedication of the creator of SimpleX instead. EncroChat was not open-source, so it was much easier to be infiltrated.
    - johnisgood 10mo ago
      You can self-host SimpleX and it is open source, otherwise I have no idea what you mean by associated with his views. If the project is as promised, then why would you care about the views of the developer?

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

Xiol 10mo ago

At first I was like, how difficult? That is quite the Twitter timeline.

bjoli 10mo ago
I came here to write just that. It is all over the place as well. I find it a bit disturbing with regard to how one defines struggle against power. What does those views mean with regards to the long term priorities of the software?
- sandblast 10mo ago
  Oh, it's very simple: those views mean nothing. Unless you can point to the part of the source code where they are expressed and explain us how this part undermines the project's technological goals.
sandblast 10mo ago
If you're so eager on encouraging cancel-culture, would you be so kind to elaborate on why exactly you want to cancel this programmer instead of just vaguely pointing in the direction of a closed platform?
- kamranjon 10mo ago
  Here is perhaps a simpler metric. If the creator of a security focused software is this awful at protecting their own anonymity- why would I trust them in the first place? If they are revealing their identity so that we can vet their credentials, then it makes sense that they would want us to judge them based on their online persona. If we believe all of this to be true - it’s not really cancel culture, it’s by design that the creator of SimpleX has implemented this filtering mechanism for their users.
  - sandblast 10mo ago
    False dychotomy — there are more options than "protecting anonymity" and "revealing identity so that credentials can be vetted". He just writes what he believes under his own name, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with establishing his authority.

baxuz 10mo ago

https://xcancel.com/epoberezkin https://xcancel.com/epoberezkin This guy?