Signal is a centralized app, run by a company. If they are offered enough money or legal threat they will sell out or close.

I am sure people will make an argument that its FOSS and people will just fork it if it goes bad, but a new fork will have 0 users and Signal will still have all of your old contacts. Why not make a switch now? Before it is even more popular and you have more reasons to stay? Why fork it if there are already decentralized apps that use same encryption, like XMPP apps?

Sure you can find flaws in every app, including XMPP implementations, but if we will have to write code for a new Signal fork, why not just fix whatever is that bugs you in XMPP clients?

If you want to use Matrix, that is fine as well, we can always bridge the two open protocols. But you cant bridge Signal if their company doesn’t allow it.

  • Mountaineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That single point of failure is to facilitate ease of use, with minimal reduction in security.
    The messages are e2e encrypted and the server is designed in such a way that attempting to listen in would bring it down.
    The signal org doesn’t even have your address book.

    If your concern is “I don’t like signal”, you’re not going to make much traction.

    • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Briar is an app that is just as easy to use, plus you dont need a phone number, so it is easier. Yet it has no point of failure and it was simpler to write. It is P2P, uses tor, you dont get better privacy and security than that.

      You dont know what their server is running, you cant prove that. They can release the code, but you have to trust them that they are running that exact code.

      Ease of use is an excuse, they have a centralized model. That is a big flaw. There is more to security then E2E, xmpp clients have E2E as well, they use the same algorithm.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        SimpleX also seems pretty promising and is more cross platform than briar. I’m self-hosting a server for my immediate family.

        • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think XMPP is more well-known than SimpleX, I simply mentioned Briar for the sake of possible ease of use argument over some XMPP clients.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Could be. I was just giving another alternative. I’ve had better luck with both SimpleX and briar than some of the other options I’ve tested.

      • Mountaineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not goin to shit on Briar, I hope they build out their dream.

        It’s fundamentally not as easy to use.
        My Grandma already has a phone with a full addressbook.
        If she’s told to install Signal, it’ll just work as a drop in replacement for iMessage.

        Briar meanwhile suggests sharing your contact info using another such as signal: https://briarproject.org/quick-start/#:~:text=When you choose “Add contact at a distance”%2C Briar,choose a nickname for them.

        Briar is chasing different goals.

        • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only part that is easier to use on Signal is also a serious privacy concern of sharing your phone number.

          With decentralized apps you always have an option to add that feature, while with centralized apps like Signal you have to accept that your privacy is damaged.

          In short, this argument for phone number is another argument why decentralized apps can be as user friendly as centralized, but not the other way around.

          • Devils69Advocate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I see your point, but what threat and their level of sophistication are you trying to avoid? The number is used just for registration. You can get a burner phone if you’re worried about sharing your number.

            • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In less and less countries we are allowed to buy phones and sim cards without an ID. Phone network is a centralized system, controlled by governments, we can’t depend on that for privacy. The main treat to privacy has always been the current ruling government, they fear privacy, because they fear people organizing against them.

              • Devils69Advocate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ll give you not being able to buy SIMs without an ID; I didn’t know that. But the rest is not as accurate. You should probably just not use a computer or phone to ensure complete security.

                • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I wouldn’t if that was a viable option. Today it is not really possible to not use technology, even not using mainstream apps will make you socially isolated and unemployable (which due to lack of decent social services, is a death sentence)