[sergiosgc]

An incremental evolution may cause us to get stuck in a local maximum. You are correct that the incremental step is necessary. You are ignoring that this incremental step sets us onto a path of closed protocols. In time we'll be worse off.

[tptacek]

So that's two things you think we should prioritize over people's safety: ergonomics and technological progress. You're digging the hole deeper for your argument.

[sergiosgc]

Only one. I never mentioned ergonomics.

[tptacek]

That's what federation is. All else being equal, you'd prefer people use less secure messaging so that you can have greater choice of clients and servers, and run your own server.

[sergiosgc]

I don't get the implication between federation and ergonomics. Federation is the ability for competing providers to operate in the protocol space. Does it lead to better ergonomics, worse ergonomics?

I don't think it impacts ergonomics.

What federation does is:

a) Remove the single point of failure present in Signal;

b) Promote competition between service providers.

None of these can be argued against.

Note that I'm not defending we stick with email. I'm defending we shouldn't move to a non-federated protocol. That fixes one thing and breaks another. Choose xmpp, matrix, design a better messaging protocol, ... Just don't take a step forward when facing the abyss on the merits of taking forward steps.

[tptacek]

They can be argued with, easily. But we don't reach that argument, because it has nothing to do with safety. You make choices in favor of "federation" and "progress" because your life is not on the line when you send messages. That's fair! Most people's lives aren't on the line! But when we talk about messaging security, we have to consider the users for whom secure messaging is intended: people who really are entrusting their lives to software.

It's helpful to compare secure messaging to medical software. If we were talking about the software that controls the radiotherapy machine, no rational person would would have any priority other than safety. But of course almost nobody interacts with radiotherapy software, and everyone interacts with messaging software, so it's hard to see the connection. But it is there.

[sergiosgc]

So, it is not about ergonomics or any other argument, except for security in an undisputed altar. I disagree with the principle, but personal principles are not challengeable. We'll have to disagree.

Just keep in mind this principle is personal, not shared with you by everyone. For example, I distrust security by central organizations, like Signal.org. They're an amazing target for bad actors.