| ▲ | tptacek 4 hours ago |
| Matrix and Signal have very different objectives. Matrix wants to be an encrypted IRC or Slack. Signal wants to be a secure messenger you can entrust your life to. They are both worthy projects; there's not as much overlap as people think. |
|
| ▲ | pkulak 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I trust my life to the server I host in my own closet. People can lecture me all day long about the superiority of Signal's encryption, and I'll just slowly rotate my chair to point my index finger at the Dell OptiPlex behind me. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's fine. You'll pardon me if I'm unwilling to trust my own safety to your Dell OptiPlex. Whatever you think about Signal, the fact is that Matrix --- which is what the thread is about --- makes decisions that serve the IRC/Slack use case at the expense of the "absolute most possible safety" use case. That makes sense: some of larger-scale group chat's goals are in tension with "absolute most possible safety". | | |
| ▲ | dwohnitmok 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wouldn't characterize Signal as "absolute most possible safety" as you are implicitly doing here. I would probably characterize Signal as "most possible safety for the average nontechnical user" which entails trade-offs against absolute safety for certain UX affordances (and project governance structures that allow for these decisions to be made), because if said affordances are not given, the average nontechnical user either simply won't use Signal or will accidentally end up making themselves even less secure. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I couldn't be less interested in arguing with you about Signal. My point is that it doesn't make as much sense to compare Signal and Matrix as people think it does. Large-scale group chat is intrinsically less safe than the kind of chats most people use Signal for. You can substitute whichever other secure messenger you prefer. This "average nontechnical user" stuff, though, miss me with. For 2 decades people have been encouraging the "average nontechnical user" to do incredibly unsafe things on the premise that any kind of message encryption is the best alternative to sending plaintext messages. No: telling people not to send those kinds of messages at all, unless you're dead certain the channel they're using is safe, is the only responsible recommendation. | |
| ▲ | BolexNOLA 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is basically the same logic for why I often recommend Plex over jellyfin to people. Yes Plex is not proper self hosting. Yes Plex the org is making increasingly questionable decisions. But for people who want to get away from the major streaming services and maybe even want to dip their toes into something that resembles self hosting, there really is no other option like Plex. It’s so insanely turnkey and easy to install on every device. You also don’t have to worry about exposing your network if you don’t know what you’re doing. If nothing else it’s an incredible foot in the door for a lot of people to make the leap to something like jellyfin later. |
|
| |
| ▲ | NegativeK 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I obviously can't speak for you, but there's not a freaking chance I'd trust my life to the servers I run. To go maybe too literal: when I'm working on machines that could physically eat me, I don't trust myself with just one off switch -- I want redundancy. And since computers are horrible piles of ridiculous complexity, the closest I can get (and not really get close) is trusting some of the top minds to overthink the crap out of it in a way that I can't do with the systems I manage. But again, YMMV. |
|
|
| ▲ | butvacuum 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| When you leak that much metadata, it's disenginious to call it encrypted. |