[Underpass9041]

I’m not entirely sure why it matters that silos of messaging data exist, if it’s encrypted like Signal and WhatsApp the centralized model is far superior to an arbitrary and unknown number of parties receiving metadata about messaging. It might have been an easier case to make if Matrix wasn’t an uphill battle in terms of usability and performance.

[neiljohnson]

Signal and WhatsApp only address the personal messaging usecase, whereas the letter is also talking about wider chat services like Teams.

More to the point, even with e2ee, there is still communication metadata that is leaving your network for a third-party service. In a defense context, you would almost certainly prefer that the data does not leave your network unnecessarily.

In terms of Matrix usability and performance, Matrix 2.0 (https://matrix.org/blog/2024/10/29/matrix-2.0-is-here/) represents a huge step forward and can be used today with compatible clients such as Element X (https://element.io/blog/deep-dive-into-element-x/)

[dartos]

> centralized model is far superior to an arbitrary and unknown number of parties receiving metadata about messaging.

One opaque MITM is worse than 1000 MITM whose inner workings are bound by a secure protocol.

That’s how the internet works. Your connection doesn’t always go directly to the server you want.

Either way, you can run your own network of matrix nodes which are isolated from the rest of the open matrix network.

[cies]

The reason for the initial development of "the internet" as we know it, basically TCP/IP, was know as the Department of Defense (DoD) model because the research and development were funded by the United States Department of Defense through DARPA.

The idea was to build a network that --unlike pre-existing networks-- did not need centralization. The goal was to make the network resilient to parts not working, with obvious military benefits.

The same can be said for messaging systems. Centralization makes it easy to take the whole service out.

> It might have been an easier case to make if Matrix wasn’t an uphill battle in terms of usability and performance.

I expect TCP/IP to have been an uphill battle as well. But now we take it for granted. This likely will also happen to Matrix if it is used everywhere.

Now I hope the DoD makes some massive donations to Matrix. Money makes uphill battles more likely to have a good ending.

[robertlagrant]

This is a different type of centralisation, though. WhatsApp isn't running out of a single data centre (I hope).

[cies]

It's not that different.

Whatsapp controls nearly everything: servers, clients, protocol.

Matrix has open protocols, several implementation of the clients/servers, and people can start their own server node.

In the comparison to TCP/IP this is quite similar. You can add to the network without needing approval of a central institution.

[robertlagrant]

> Whatsapp controls nearly everything: servers, clients, protocol.

This is nothing to do with resilience in the face of things being destroyed in a war. That's what I'm saying: it's not the same sort of centralisation.

> In the comparison to TCP/IP this is quite similar. You can add to the network without needing approval of a central institution.

I can join WhatsApp without approval as well. But also - how like that is TCP/IP? All IP addresses have to be agreed and assigned, do they not?

[batch12]

WhatsApp can be turned off tomorrow as a result of a war or the whim of an executive.

> I can join WhatsApp without approval as well

You absolutely need approval to join WhatsApp. Approval and a phone number.

> All IP addresses have to be agreed and assigned, do they not

You can assign your own IPs and have your own network if you want.

[deepbluev7]

But Matrix works fine if a hospital disconnects itself from the internet because of some DDoS or hacking attack. WhatsApp doesn't, because you can't host it on-prem. I am not sure about if governments have that use case, but we certainly have seen it in hospitals. (And even then, there are benefits of having patient data only on specific servers in specific environments, even if they are encrypted, because if you use WhatsApp to talk to your doctor, Meta will know about that. And I am pretty sure governments can appreciate such features as well.)

[ndsipa_pomu]

>This is a different type of centralisation, though

Not really. There's a single entity that controls WhatsApp and so the entire service can be stopped by threatening/sabotaging that single entity.

[TeMPOraL]

It is the centralization type that matters.

Obligatory reminder that the whole "Internet routes around censorship" like it routes around glassed data centres during nuclear war, etc. applies to layers 3-4 of ISO/OSI model. The problematic centralization of the Internet happens at layer 7.

[karel-3d]

Yes, working on a single centralised service is orders of magnitude easier than working on a decentralised service.

Especially when security and cryptography enters into the picture.

[ndsipa_pomu]

> I’m not entirely sure why it matters that silos of messaging data exist

It doesn't matter until one day, something happens that does make it matter.

Imagine if a centralised model was used and a foreign state managed to sever connections to the internet that was used by that country/central server. It's more resilient to be able to route messages even if the network is under attack. This kind of thinking is behind the original design of the internet although we now seem to have centralised large portions of functionality.

[mycall]

Decentralized messaging and communications are more compatible with the first principles of the internet.

[Yeul]

The real principles have always been a US dominated and controlled internet. The only ones who ever understood that and didn't sign up to Pax Americana are the Chinese who are building their own internet.

[Timshel]

Encryption won't help you much if you are not the one hosting the server and they disappear ...