A BBC investigation reveals that Microsoft is permanently banning Palestinians in the U.S. and other countries who use Skype to call relatives in Gaza.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 2 years ago (9 children)

You have to trust someone with these communications, there is no free communication beyond face to face

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Matrix (federated) or Briar (multi-modal P2P) are both good options for getting rid of dependency on central organizations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Still need an ISP. ISPs are pretty centralized and monolithic for lots of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Unless you build your own, you have to trust your ISP to move packets, but you don't have to rely on any third party services or give them your personal info to use social media.

    Fully decentralized, open-source, and encrypted social networks exist. The only servers needed are your computer and the computers of the friends you communicate with. (See: Retroshare )

    They're just never going to get big because small, personal friend-to-friend networks can't compete with the network effects of centralized media and a never-ending torrent of dopamine on tap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    trust yourself by hosting a matrix server

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    How do you call a landline number in a war zone through a matrix server?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I was simply responding to the comment:

    You have to trust someone with these communications, there is no free communication beyond face to face

    the oh-so-clever smart alecks saying "whaddabout ISPs????" forgot about 2-way radio and meshnets

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Signal is centrally hosted thus it's proverbial rug can be pulled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Wait until you find out about internet service providers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can have more than one dumb pipe to push bits through, but if the ISP can read your network traffic then you have bigger problems than a single-point-of-failure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Do you have more than one ISP?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    I'm very lucky in that regard. Not only do we have a local ISP and mobile service from a national carrier, but the electric co-op that provides our power just ran 2.5Gb/s fiber through the neighborhood and lets members use 200Mb/s on it for free.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They didn't fuck up, they made a design choice about the scope of the app. Are they also fucking up by not blurring the messages on screen? After all someone could be looking over your shoulder without you realizing it. Maybe Signal should ship with spyglasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure why you think anyone would want a messenger that touts itself for its encryption to not encrypt things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It does encrpyt messages: In transit, exactly as advertised. Holy fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Then it's weird they are fixing it now. Why aren't they insisting this doesn't need to be dealt with because it was a feature, not a bug?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's weird that apps sometimes change scope and add features that users want? Ones that contributers already did most of the work for?

    Why aren’t they insisting this doesn’t need to be dealt with because it was a feature, not a bug?

    That was literally what they have been saying this whole fucking time.

    "The database key was never intended to be a secret. At-rest encryption is not something that Signal Desktop is currently trying to provide or has ever claimed to provide," responded the Signal employee.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's really fucking annoying how relentlessly you pick fights with people these days. Wish you'd chill out dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Or I'm just speaking my mind and you don't agree.

    And aren't you picking as fight with me right now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Not picking a fight; don't really care what you have to say in response. Just needed to share my observation that you are latching onto people in a really aggressive manner in multiple threads as of late. If that doesn't bother you then go ahead and disregard.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    You are right to bringing up this issue and it is pretty fucking big deal inho mistakes happen but signal "leadership" has made series of questionable choice which don't quite align with the user base.

    Other person is down playing it hard too. Hard to tell why as he is not really providing any good reason besides trying to "explain" it away

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wasn't Elon Musk trying to push Telegram?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    That wouldn't shock me, but he was right that Signal was not addressing a known vulnerability. In fact, denying that it even was a vulnerability.

    For what it's worth, I trust Telegram even less than Signal. And at least Signal seems to be finally doing something about the problem.

  • source
  • parent