• Asudox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Instead, we have SimpleX, Matrix, XMPP, Briar and Signal. They’re ultimately better than Telegram.

    • chameleon@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 days ago

      The main reason many sub-communities are stuck on Telegram (and Discord) are the public group chat/broadcast channel related features. Signal still has a 1000 member group size limit, which is more than enough for a “group DM” but mostly useless for groups with publicly posted invite links. Those same groups would also much rather have functional scrollback/search on join instead of encryption.

      • Lime Buzz (fae/she)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        And that’s fine and good, if you want that, I’ve no problem with people getting their needs met.

        I just wish they wouldn’t call it secure or private or think there will be no consequences for using it, there absolutely could be because there is no encryption in groups and bad encryption in one-to-one contexts.

        Apart from the lack of moderation and refusal to comply with police etc from a distance, there isn’t much keeping those who use it safe from arrest, discrimination etc.

    • Lime Buzz (fae/she)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      20 days ago

      SimpleX is not as good as other offerings yet, it is very lacking in features and frustrating to use for the few it does have.

      Matrix has bad encryption: https://soatok.blog/2024/08/14/security-issues-in-matrixs-olm-library/

      XMPP also has not very useful encryption (though not bad imo, it’s just not user friendly nor on all the time or in every client): https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/

      Briar isn’t there yet on every device, it doesn’t have feature parity on all devices/OSs and can’t be used on all devices/OS.

      Signal is the only one really worth considering at the moment in my opinion for most users, good features, and for actually proven encryption.

      • Asudox@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        I actually think that too. People just think that providing their phone numbers makes them less private when privacy does not mean anonymity.

        • Lime Buzz (fae/she)@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 days ago

          Yeah. Phone numbers are less of an issue now what with usernames and with certain options chosen no one can find you by phone number on Signal.

          I do agree with them to some degree that tying accounts to phone numbers should be removed or at least optional, but it’s less of an issue now.

          I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking privacy means “the maxmimum amount of privacy at all times” and whilst that’s understandable it’s not a thing that is likely in this current world nor does everyone need it, which is why people can and should be doing accurate threat modelling for themselves, which most don’t.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          People just think that providing their phone numbers makes them less private when privacy does not mean anonymity.

          Yeah, people just think that providing their phone numbers makes local police able to easily find them and insert soldering iron into their rectum when privacy does not mean that that police will not easily find you for what you said on the internets. Wait, what?

          • Lime Buzz (fae/she)@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            Okay, I’ll bite. But considering Signal has no data and very little metadata to give people, what exactly is the problem? What evidence would they have to arrest people on?

            Especially now that people don’t have to share phone numbers to add a contact and can stop others from finding them via numbers.

            • uis@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              What evidence would they have to arrest people on?

              Message in big group chat and phone number. Message can for example say that war is bad, and as result you will be charhed with “discreditation of army”.

              Especially now that people don’t have to share phone numbers to add a contact

              Phone number that tied to your passport. Yep, not sharing phone number to add a contact will magically help here.

              • Lime Buzz (fae/she)@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                18 days ago

                That’s fair, one reason I stay out of big groups, though you can set it not to be displayed to anyone, so I’m not fully grasping your argument.

                What do you mean by passport? It will a bit, if someone doesn’t know the phone number of an account that sent a message.

                • uis@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  18 days ago

                  though you can set it not to be displayed to anyone,

                  Is it something new? I don’t remember it being a thing.

                  What do you mean by passport?

                  In certain countries(Russia) you need passport to buy SIM card. So phone number is tied to person.