|
|
|
|
|
|
by some_furry
24 days ago
|
|
|
Maybe it's because I'm a bad writer, but I've heard from at least a half dozen people in recent years that they think I'm too pro-Signal when my actual stance wasn't "Signal is good" but rather "all these so-called alternatives suck ass when it comes to cryptography implementations". Signal pisses me off in a lot of ways. If someone joins a group chat and posts horrific content, the admins cannot clean it up. This extremely basic functionality doesn't meet the most basic bar for group moderation and safety tools. This means a troll posting a high-frequency flashing GIF to a group chat full of epileptic people is going to cause real harm. This means someone joining a chat and posting unsolicited CSAM will legally imperil everyone present and the admins are powerless to intervene at all. They seem really indifferent on fixing this. I would love for an alternative app to materialize that provided the same level of cryptographic excellence as Signal but without the enormous ego of their marketing teams or evangelists, which actually put a microgram of care into user experience and community safety. None of the alternatives people raise meet the bar, and I find it extremely disingenuous when people insist their privacy (which is a second-order property from their cryptographic implementations) is somehow "better than Signal". So when people do this, I tend to 0day their favored apps. https://soatok.blog/encrypted-messaging-apps/ We, collectively, as an industry, should be able to do better. That we haven't is depressing. |
|
|
I have my own ideas about requirements, but they're not concrete enough to say "requirements analysis done, let's start programming"; and most people I talk to haven't thought about this enough to be helpful.