Don't Stand Out.

When you say "Each user can choose a different notification service" you aren't enhancing privacy you are standing out.

When you say "Each group of users can have their own servers" you aren't enhancing privacy you are standing out.

So yeah, it's only for "total normies" in the sense that if you insist on standing out from those "total normies" that's a problem.

Signal is taking advantage of the inherent camouflage of crowds, once you insist on standing out that's gone and you can't get it back.

▲

ada-h00k 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Using the preinstalled Google services effectively turns your smartphone into spyware. In the standard Android that comes preinstalled on most smartphones, Google services run with system privileges and can collect all kinds of data including location data. If Signal exclusively supports this, it reinforces dependence on Google and discourages people from using versions of Android that don’t include Google’s spyware.

▲

amiga386 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Then don't do that?

Install vanilla LineageOS or GrapheneOS with no GApps. Then install Signal from https://signal.org/android/apk/

▲

yolo1897 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The whole point is that it's unusable without Google services due to battery drain. Meta got it right with WhatsApp and a battery-efficient WebSockets implementation for notifications without Google services, but Signal's implementation is poor.

▲

microtonal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That doesn't address the criticism that this thread started with:

Unified Push, which works flawlessly on Molly, could easily be implemented in the regular client.

▲

amiga386 an hour ago | parent [-]

It's a moot point, as Signal isn't going to support self-hosted notification servers any more than it'll support self-hosted communication servers.

Signal works without GMS or any alternative, at the cost of more phone wakeups. This is much more preferable to everyone whose WiFi or data service you use see you connect to "push.myownname.com", or for you to rely in some rando gatekeeping your message delivery.

	▲	cherryteastain an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> everyone whose WiFi or data service you use see you connect to "push.myownname.com" Mozilla has one. Hell, Signal _themselves_ could host a UnifiedPush server. Not an excuse to say 'you use Google or our app uses 10x the battery'.
	▲	ada-h00k an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There is no reasonable reason why they shouldn't support it. Having my cell phone battery drain faster is a much bigger drawback for me than simply hosting my own push server at home.

▲

wolvoleo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> When you say "Each group of users can have their own servers" you aren't enhancing privacy you are standing out.

You're also hedging against mandated government backdoors.

A single organisation like signal can easily compelled to add a backdoor (or leave the territory) like the EU is trying to do. Going after thousands of servers individually is a whole different problem.

▲

hgoel 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Stand out from what? Are you seriously arguing that the only things keeping Signal from being banned are that it somehow camouflages itself?

▲

0c3ca83 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

Other users. Anonymity only works if you don't paint a unique identification on your mask.

That said, I would like all users to look degoogled.

	▲	fwn 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		(Not to object the degoogeling, but:) To create a Signal account, you have to validate a phone number. So Signal is currently largly about privacy, not anonymity. FWIW I wouldn't know why to message someone if I didn't know who they were. The same goes for them not knowing who I am. What would we even talk about?

▲

Timshel 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The reverse is true, if more app support unified push then those using it will stand out less.

▲

pkal an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There just is a contention between software freedom and privacy that people don't want to acknowledge sometimes. Signal is firmly on one side of the divide, and their software is open source because it is the convention to have the source public and auditable, not because they are interested in user freedom and respect.

▲

donutdonot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not sure I follow or understand your argument. There's so many things with which eg Telegram stands out, but it still appeals to normies.

▲

tancop 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They could still implement these things in the app and put them behind a switch for users who care about independence more than one specific type of anonymity. Explain the tradeoffs on the settings screen.

The only valid reason to be against an optional feature is the maintenance burden, I don't think it's too much here but I also can't speak for the Signal team.

▲

IMSTANDINGOUTNO 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]