• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    104 months ago

    I’m very sympathetic to this blog post, as it nicely describes why I use XMPP.

    But, on a related note, I have noticed an interesting pattern where people talk past each other a little, especially when conflating user freedom and security.

    If I’m to generalise, I feel the outlook of XMPP users tends to be more systemic and long-term. We’ve seen how chat networks come and go, we’ve seen the dangers of companies promising to serve your interests whilst also being a chokepoint of centralisation. So we tend to de-emphasize papercuts or current issues in clients and the protocol, on the basis that we have the power to fix them if we want to.

    I feel that’s shown in this blog post - all the points come back to the benefits of user freedom: no one entity controls you, the protocol serves you, you can choose your own clients, and if you don’t like it, you can always switch / write your own!

    What I’ve seen is that the people who gravitate towards Signal tend to be more concerned with the here and now - e.g. “how do I get my friend off telegram onto a secure / private service”. I feel in many cases that making arguments about federation and the structure of the network won’t sway them, as they’ll always be able to point to some area where the clients are deficient in the here and now (depending on their interests - papercuts in the clients, different versions of OMEMO being used across the network etc).

    I don’t really have a solution to this, but I think all we can do is continue to make the clients and servers as good as they can possibly be. I always encourage anyone I manage to migrate to XMPP to send me any annoyances they find in the apps, so that they can eventually be fixed. We need to be ready for when Telegram, Signal, WhatsApp etc. abuse their power, because (as we’ve seen from the fediverse) that’s the only time that “regular people” will care for the arguments that we’re making about federation and user freedom.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Nicholas Nassim Taleb has coined the term “IYI” ( for “Intellectual Yet Idiot”) for experts that ignore common sense and long-established principles because they prefer to rely on new discoveries based on poorly-proven theories.

    Anyone that prefers Signal over decentralized protocols is an IYI who I’d never trust with any actual, practical security solution.

    • @Fosheze
      link
      English
      44 months ago

      Signal is an improvement over twitter or facebook mesenger. There is no way I would be able get my friend group to switch from those to XMPP but I did get then to at least switch to signal. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it’s a hell of a lot better than what came before. Eventually I might get them over to something better like XMPP but nontechnically inclined people can’t make that jump in one go.

      Looking at this as someone familiar to FOSS is a completely different perspective than for the average person. If you tell the average person to use XMPP then they’re going to type XMPP into their preinstalled app store and get confused about “which app is the XMPP app”.

        • @Fosheze
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          Isn’t whatsapp owned by Zucc?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            It has end-to-end encryption and is used by billions of people. It’s certainly a step up compared to FB Messenger.

            The point is: if you are supporting Signal because of its usability and you don’t care about giving up control to a siloed platform, then WhatsApp is already enough.

    • a Kendrick fan
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      Exactly, I felt the same way when I read the original “security researcher” post, this person then doubled down and insulted basically anyone with a differing opinion