438
‘There isn’t really another choice:’ Signal chief explains why the encrypted messenger relies on AWS (www.theverge.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/51866711

Signal was just one of many services brought down by the AWS outage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

It's weird for Signal to not be able to do what Telegram does. Yes, for this particular purpose they are not different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Telegram is basically not even encrypted. They are not offering the same service.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    For the purpose of "shoot a message, go offline and be certain it's sent" it's the same service.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    If sending a message is the only requirement, email fits the bill and has worked for half a century. If we're being real, the reason Signal "can't do what Telegram does" is because Telegram doesn't even attempt to do what Signal does. Signal is tackling a much bigger problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    What are you talking about?

    I'm saying that the parts of infrastructure needed to accept a message to the service from the client application, encrypted or not, associated to a user or not, are under same requirements for Signal and Telegram.

    I don't know if you understand that every big service is basically its own 90s' Internet self-contained, and what accepts your messages is pretty similar to an SMTP server in their architecture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent