I feel like I will just give up and use WhatsApp and assume that I only had privacy pre-internet.
Yup, this is it. The point they've been waiting for us to cross. It was inevitable imo to not give up and surrender to it. It feels like we as a society are slowing transcending from the 4th to the 5th stage of grief.
I wonder how quickly they would switch if WhatsApp started requiring a monthly fee to use it. I get the feeling that big sense of helplessness would suddenly vanish.
If they claim to care so much about online data privacy, let them prove it. They've already proven they care a lot about price.
Everyone has time and ability to make their own choices with like-minded friends. They do it for everything else, that's how they started using WhatsApp and co in the first place. Their claims to caring about privacy are as convincing as a friend who keeps telling you "sorry, I'm too busy", "another time then?", "maybe", repeated ad nauseam. Then you see them at another party with someone else confusingly named "WhatsApp" and you realize they just couldn't make time for you, who is named "Signal".
Again, look at how quickly users switch when a service requires payment (IIRC WhatsApp did try to do this once and a lot of users chose to leave instead of paying). They're just too busy & helpless, right? How much proselytization did that take?
This was a process, not a 1-day switch from skype to whatsapp. The network effects are real, and if you don't understand how difficult it is to get people to join a chat app, you won't win.
Of course it's difficult to get people to join a chat app, and it should be. At a minimum you should need to provide something that users want and didn't have before. WhatsApp offered something new, it was an effective price tag of zero with phone number contacts. Skype offered something new and desirable (until it didn't). Snapchat offered something new and desirable. All of them had predecessors with network effects and still succeeded by giving users something they really wanted. They didn't throw their hands up and blame users.
Surprisingly though, Signal is gaining a bit of traction, so I think "Privacy" is still something people do want. But it has to be better defined.
And to be completely honest I don't believe in Signal. The current messenger wars kind of feel like a parallel universe's email wars "yahoo vs gmail vs hotmail vs live" or something. Coming up with a new messenger is easy. Most of them have the same featuresets. The underlying protocols should be compatible instead of this sorry state of affairs.
Matrix will probably win out in the end but it's going to be long-drawn and unnecessarily annoying for users in the mean time. It shouldn't matter if you're using instagram's UI, or messenger's, or signal's, …. You should get access to the contacts you want, and be able to cross-talk.
Only way to really take power back is make an app better than what's on the market, and have it respect your privacy. A very, very tall order, but I think it's the only way we can really take power away from big tech and give it back to the people.
I don't think you can win by just having a better app. Marketing plays a big role. So something like Signal is going to be a major underdog because OSS and freeware don't have the same cashflow to do marketing. What I'm trying to say is that we need to be that marketing. Talking about data and privacy _is_ that marketing.
- scrolling contact list is slow and stutters - opening Signal displays empty frame far too long - it's not possible to add/invite a person during the call, you need to define groups for group calls - forwarding message from chat to chat is not working - messages in a chat take too much space. If a person sent three consecutive messages, don't display his name on all of them, just on first one.
And the worst thing is those polish fixes don't have to do anything with crypto and privacy. It's purely client side issue, but Moxie & Co. decided their priority is adding MobileCoint inside a chat app instead of polishing existing clients.
I've been thinking about this a bit, and I'm going to stop short of asking people to switch, and just try to get them to install it (and maybe even get them to casually suggest their friends do the same, if the opportunity arises). It's a hopefully small, risk-free step to take, and the more people that have installs, the more likely it is that "no one is there" will start becoming not true, even if not immediately.
Pidgin with a shitton of plugins. If the only problem is the migration, that still works as a single client, albeit with drawbacks and hiccups. (I collected them at https://github.com/petermolnar/awesome-pidgin-plugins and yes, it'll need to be compiled, even Pidgin itself for some of the solutions. There's nothing user friendly about it, sadly.)
On the other hand... the only system I never had to migrate off is IRC. The funny bit of IRC is that it's not private in terms of security at all, but because it's anonymus, it still feels like it.
And so I keep thinking about needs when it comes to privacy: what do I really need in the context of internet communication? Anonymity, privacy, or both?
I don't have a definitive answer.
Like many people, I'd definitely prefer having just one messenger, but now I simply use Signal with everyone that's on it and only have to open WhatsApp a few times a week. This entire thing has to be seen as a process IMO.
Still waiting for that to be the case. After 6 years of using Signal, I have a whopping... two... people in my contacts who also use it.
The most common response is still "Why don't you just use Whatsapp?"
Pretty much the only way we're going to see critical mass with Signal is if someone like Google were to make it their default platform for messaging.
Because in the end normal users think about the functionality and price first, everything else second. Privacy? Just a neat-sounding bonus you can feel good about if your favorite app includes it and don't care about if it doesn't.
I think the most important factor here is network effects.
Some are very loyal to the Zuckerberg offerings. They ride or die with the Zuckster.
Most of them have been busted, multiple times.
It comes down to risk exposure, gotta make a deal with one devil, but you don't want a dozen bad actors ganging up on your data.
I like the sites and apps that accept my data as currency so that I can use/browse them without getting out my wallet. Plus I like seeing ads for products that I might want to buy. Win win.
"we" care, up to the point of "it's too much effort", and "we" have tried to do a grassroots movement to get people to use more privacy-focused apps.
But these apps, in the end, are still owned by companies who are not charities; they want to earn money, and digitally, it feels like you can only make money by selling subscriptions, ads, or printing a cryptocurrency - and subscriptions don't work because of (sponsored / investor funded) free alternatives.
Anyway, if you put legislation in place like in Europe, the companies will have no choice. In theory anyway; in practice they find and abuse loopholes soon enough, or just do things covertly, hope they won't be found out, and just pay the fine if something does come up. Which they can easily afford by then, not so much from the money they earn from their monetization method, but stock market value.
I think there should only be legislation about stuff people care about.
What makes you say people don't?
Whether or not a bunch of competent security gurus on HN assure us that yes, Signal is still great and no, Moxie didn't go nuts, doesn't really influence the validity of that argument outside tech circles. Don't forget that we've all spent years training our aunts and nephews to not trust the companies that make the apps they use. It's a major marketing mistake and they should've known better.
Also, ApplePay has nowhere near the same stigma associated with it as cryptocurrencies do, I think your comparison is silly.
FWIW, if Signal was new today and someone would pitch me "a super secure messaging app with built-in crypto payments" I'd not easily get enthusiastic. I've been trained to treat any pitch that includes the word "crypto" or "token" with high suspicion, because of the crap magnets those technologies have been historically. Too many people's "get rich quick" schemes sounded exactly like that a few years ago.
trust only works in retrospect (it can't be extended into the future to a party simply because they make a promise)
all such relationships have an expiry date (since as the trusted party evolves or needs to reinvent itself to satisfy shareholders). what can prevent this are bullet-proof contracts (that's not how people make decisions though - they never read the fine-print, review it when it changes and instead work on gut-feeling and emotions).
putting your trust into a brand/product is always going to eventually hurt you. A product having reached the size of Signal will most certainly throw part of it's user-base to the curb if it thinks it's held back by their opinions/goals.
The disconnect is people thinking Signal owes them something (when everybody actually used it for free until now).
Nonsense. Trust provides a basis for present and future dealings.
I highly recommend Robert Cialdini before making opinionated comments on trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
I don't trust you.
And several other serious problems.
You are being incredibly close-minded and only listing the cons of cryptocurrencies.
The fact is that many people have negative associations with crypto. Even if they're wrong, it's still going to be bad marketing for Signal.
My sole contact with cryptocurrencies is endless spam in mailbox, endless scam attempts in communities that I moderate and information about ICO and other scams. And <s>investments</s> gambling. And very rare cases of cryptocurrencies being useful for something.
And repeated info about being utter failure for payments. For comparison cash/credit card payment is done within 20 seconds for cc and within minute for cash. Both at cost of below 0.01 $ for payment.
To me it looks like people here are vastly overreacting.
Honestly, this is a bad argument. You can use Signal and never send a gif or stickers. You don't have to do anything with ~~stickers~~crypto when using Signal. It is an opt-in feature that is probably going to not be used my 90% of people. This is just a bad argument surrounding the whole ordeal.
Now the arguments about: regulations, Moxie's involvement (stated he has no coins but there's other potential issues), and how the final system will actually look like (e.g. should it be a second app), those are valid arguments that we should be discussing. But the above one just isn't great and I'm tired of seeing it.
Contrived strawman rebuttal: Government sees app "ThingX" now deals with crypto. ThingX indicates that different variants of the app can interact with crypto depending on the region. Government doesn't care because they're not tech savvy, bans ThingX because crypto.
Although ultimately the effect is similar to "claiming" them by virtue of being the only one (as long as you don't share the private key of course) that can operate on those one and zeroes (i.e transfering them to some other address).
Unlike, say, copyright, where even if you claim ownership, someone else can also operate on it (e.g. piracy), illegally of course, but still can.
I’m not arguing that position but I’m just saying that if that is the case, then their boycott is more reasonable than say a “stickers” boycott.
Seriously, most mining farms are using geothermal or water dams generators.
Yeah there is a big education gap that just gets wider with stigma.
This series of short articles is very good for those who want to learn the fundamentals: https://tomerstrolight.medium.com/why-bitcoin-the-series-660...
It is a protective heuristic for the non-tech people.
Basically, the more something mentions crypto coins, the higher the likelihood that it is a scam of some type.
It is not always true, but it is true enough for the average person and , in general, functions pretty well as a heuristic.
Thus, they hear about this new, previously unknown, chat service, and see an association with crypto coins, their scam detector immediately goes off, and they don’t want anything to do with it.
Yes, it may take a while, but the glacier does in fact move.
No, it is a very good argument. Those who are using computers since pre-mobile era (which is everyone but zoomers) remember very well how simple programs slowly became more bloated and then basically became adware. This is what it is associated to.
In general, boycotting the product is the time-tested way to send messages to big corp. if you don’t like your clothes being made by child labor, don’t buy the brand. If you don’t like WhatsApp privacy policy, don’t install it. If you don’t like P&G spying on people in China, don’t buy their products. And if you don’t like cryptocurrencies, don’t use stuff from companies which support them.
The next step plan is to move to Dendrite, which is a new homeserver taking the lessons learned from writing Synapse, as well as being implemented in Go instead of Python. But it doesn't yet do everything. You can try a dendrite-hosted server by using dendrite.matrix.org as your homeserver. (AFAIK it has its own accounts.)
I think of myself as a technophile but element/matrix/riot made me eat the humble pie.
Now I still don’t want to use WhatsApp but I don’t know which other messaging app will replace it. I think none.
Or similar? Because as far as HN bubble/bias/hivemind goes "We like privacy, we like to complain, we dislike cryptocurrency scams" would be a fitting (though partial) description.
So people irritated by that change by Signal being heavily represented on HN is not surprising.
Needless to say all the fax machine companies went out of business because no one wanted internet features associated with their faxes.