[vog]

> The fact that its default chats are not end-to-end encrypted and are stored in plaintext on its servers is a concern.

"Concern"? This is a deal-breaker.

> Everyone who talks about this as a huge deficiency should also consider that this applies to email too, unless one always uses encryption (like GPG/PGP or S/MIME).

The contenders here are Signal and WhatsApp, not email.

Having better UX and safer defaults than email is nothing to be proud of - it is the bare minimum.

[eitland]

> "Concern"? This is a deal-breaker.

Anyone who finds themselves using email disagrees in practice. Plain text on the servers are no practical deal breaker to the vast majority of people, not even the majority of HNers.

> The contenders here are Signal and WhatsApp, not email.

This is the problem:

Stop recommending WhatsApp and we are a little closer.

Many of us can agree that Signal is probably more secure, even after the horrible bug they had in their desktop client not that long ago.

But WhatsApp is nothing but a metadata collection engine for Facebook.

I'm not too happy with the saying about not paying meaning you are the product, but in this case it fits perfectly:

1. Facebook buys WhatsApp, makes it free, promisese they can't combine it.

2. Turns out Facebook is too greedy to even pretend it wants to keep its promises, and goes on to update Terms Of Service, adding a default opt-in.

Can we stop recommending WhatsApp now?

Signal exists critical stuff.

For everything else, use something that works: Telegram, email, whatever, -even WhatsApp.

[newscracker]

> "Concern"? This is a deal-breaker.

For me it's a concern, not a deal breaker. Whenever another app with end-to-end encryption comes close to Telegram on features, speed and UX, I'll switch to it completely. Currently Wire seems closest, but it still has quite a bit of catching up to do.