undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFreak_NL4y ago0 comments

Most messaging app users don't really care about encryption either. Most (or at least a large minority) probably wouldn't mind if their messages were used to 'deliver ads more suitable for you'.

It doesn't mean these aren't important issues. Until Signal drops the phone number requirement (nothing beats that for efficient user tracking), allows desktop use without requiring a smartphone anywhere in the process, open sources their server code, and allows for third party clients in a reasonable way; I agree with dfkajglag: not yet an ally of user freedom.

0 comments

Semaphor4y ago

> Until Signal drops the phone number requirement (nothing beats that for efficient user tracking), allows desktop use without requiring a smartphone anywhere in the process

I could handle the closed server for enabling me to use IM to talk to people. But these two points are what make it a non-starter for me.

lucian19004y ago

The phone number requirement is the only thing making Signal remotely close to usable for the wider public. Similarly, non-phone messaging is niche in the extreme. Unusable software is not an ally of user freedom.

The actual problem with Signal is that they took US State Department funding. That doesn't mean it's an op necessarily, but suspicious nonetheless.

Freak_NLOP4y ago

Why? If someone wants to use a phone number for their identifier, fine. But make it optional. If I join Signal with another alias (free-form string perhaps) then they could just add me via that. Not really harder than using my phone number.

JumpCrisscross4y ago

> Why? If someone wants to use a phone number for their identifier, fine. But make it optional

Network effects.

If you’re only findable via custom handle versus the phone number your network already has, you’ve reduced the network’s value to your contacts. Put another way, if I join a messaging service and it says two of my contacts are on it (but many more may be), that’s close to a non-starter.

1 more reply

imwillofficial4y ago

And insane spam follows.

1 more reply

lucian19004y ago

If it's optional, then there is more than one way to identify users. For a non-technical user, that means they have to make a choice and understand that choice, as opposed to just always using a phone number.

And everyone with a phone has a phone number.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsFreak_NL4y ago0 comments

Most messaging app users don't really care about encryption either. Most (or at least a large minority) probably wouldn't mind if their messages were used to 'deliver ads more suitable for you'.

0 comments

Semaphor4y ago

> Until Signal drops the phone number requirement (nothing beats that for efficient user tracking), allows desktop use without requiring a smartphone anywhere in the process

I could handle the closed server for enabling me to use IM to talk to people. But these two points are what make it a non-starter for me.

lucian19004y ago

The actual problem with Signal is that they took US State Department funding. That doesn't mean it's an op necessarily, but suspicious nonetheless.

Freak_NLOP4y ago

JumpCrisscross4y ago

> Why? If someone wants to use a phone number for their identifier, fine. But make it optional

Network effects.

1 more reply

imwillofficial4y ago

And insane spam follows.

1 more reply

lucian19004y ago

And everyone with a phone has a phone number.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse