|
|
|
|
|
|
by zaik
1616 days ago
|
|
|
> XMPP is an open standard -> Doesn't this apply to Signal, too? The Signal protocol is neither an open (you cannot propose changes or extensions in an open process) nor has it been submitted to an standards body. > Some developers claim not to track users. With Signal you have to trust a single entity not to track you. With XMPP you have the freedom to choose that entity (including choosing yourself). > if we assume people can choose a non-identifiable username, then we can also assume people can choose a non-identifiable phone number This is just dishonest. It's a lot harder to obtain a non-identifiable phone number than to think of a random username. |
|
|
Who defines "open standard" in the first place? There is no global definition for this.
> With Signal ... With XMPP ...
Another person just claimed comparing both is silly. There are already other comments addressing the rest of your statement.
> non-identifiable phone number ... random username
You compare distinct properties in your own statement. "non-identifiable" isn't the same as "random". If you want to get a random phone number, you can just buy any SIM card. Is this nitpicking? Maybe, but nitpicking is also including in dozens of "XMPP is better than Signal" statements in the comment section. There are already other comments addressing the rest of your statement.