Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tim Schlotfeldt ⚓ ? (ts-new@hub.tschlotfeldt.de)'s status on Friday, 11-Apr-2025 03:18:56 JST Tim Schlotfeldt ⚓ ?

   • jwz
   @jwz has some thoughts on #Signal and I think he is right. Nice Logo, btw :)
   
   jwz schrieb den folgenden Beitrag Tue, 08 Apr 2025 22:07:51 +0200
   Because of the ongoing fucktastrophe, the cries of "Use SIGNAL!" are constant and unavoidable. And I get it, it may be the least-bad option in a sea of terrible options. If, that is, you choose to ignore the advice of "don't use your phone for that shit" (the Stringer Bell Rule).
   
   But out of curiosity, because I haven't been keeping up, has the Signal Corporation addressed: ...
   
   https://jwz.org/b/ykmD
   
   What he addresses are these points:
   

   1. cryptocurrency (ponzi scheme)
   2. no third-party implementations
   3. no usage without telephone number
   4. sharing name and phone number with every contact in your address book
   5. no reproducible builds on apple devices

   
   
   So, what kind of messengers do we have. Let's take a look at Mike Kuketz' Messenger Matrix. This list recommends seven menssengers.
   
   Let's see how many are left when we include jwz's points:
   

   • Briar
   • Conversations (XMPP, Android)
   • Element (Matrix)
   • Line
   • Monal (XMPP, iOS)
   • Signal
   • Threema

   
   
   This leaves us with #Briar and #XMPP.
   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Ruben De Smet (rubdos@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 11-Apr-2025 03:20:47 JST Ruben De Smet

     in reply to

     @ts-new Signal is well-known for all their efforts in metadata protection. As far as I know, XMPP has none of that.

     XMPP's E2EE is also an optional mode, which you have to turn on on a client-by-client basis.

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Makarios (tmakarios@theres.life)'s status on Friday, 11-Apr-2025 03:20:47 JST Tim Makarios

     in reply to

     • Ruben De Smet

     @rubdos @ts-new
     XMPP protects metadata by not forcing all communications to pass through one organization's servers. I understand that for this reason, it's very difficult to figure out even how many people use XMPP, let alone who they are and who they talk to.

     But yes, if you think you're a target of individual surveillance, that protection isn't ideal, but nor is the prospect of telling Signal who you talk to.

     I'd love to see wider use of peer-to-peer XMPP, or something like it.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Ruben De Smet (rubdos@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 11-Apr-2025 03:20:51 JST Ruben De Smet

     in reply to

     • jwz

     @ts-new @jwz I maintain a third-party implementation. Point four is also moot since Signal implemented PNI. Setting a name per contact would be cool, although Signal's threat model doesn't really address anonymity.

     Let's not consider XMPP as an alternative to Signal. That's just weird.

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Schlotfeldt ⚓ ? (ts-new@hub.tschlotfeldt.de)'s status on Friday, 11-Apr-2025 03:20:51 JST Tim Schlotfeldt ⚓ ?

     in reply to

     • Ruben De Smet
     @Ruben De Smet
     Let's not consider XMPP as an alternative to Signal. That's just weird.
     Just saying weird is not enough. Why is it weird?