341–350 of 480 posts
Of course my first reaction was "I hate this" but then I thought about it and whatever I don't care at all. I downloaded the update and it's a new tab. They don't force it on you at all. They very very clearly state that you can opt-out and how to do it. This was tastefully done, which is fresh air in the world of social media crapware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Stickers are widely used in the group chats I am in. I myself have created multiple sticker packs since the sticker feature launched. Before that, several people mentioned they thought Signal looked like a shitty app because it "didn't even have stickers." Ultimately there was no shortage of boring, cryptographically-secure apps. Signal is filling demand for an app that is both se…
Taking it up after it became available is not the same thing as asking for it. Sorry but this a frivolous cosmetic thing compared to security issues like Signal's ongoing linkage to phone numbers.
Main issue with current industry, is, the product changed eventually , but mostly for worse. As original makers have gone.
Universal solution, is, everyone should have ability to make their own social circle (think contact platform), with a federated protocol to connect with other's circle contact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still of the opinion that encrypted private group chats are an impossible UX problem (1:1 chat is fine). But if I were to trust anyone to find a way to do it properly, it would be Signal.
What makes it impossible? Naively I would think that if you have a secure 1:1 communication protocol, then you can send N*(1:1) secure messages to a group of N people. To solve the "fake group message" problem where an adversarial member of the group sends different messages to different members of the group, or delays the message to some members, the protocol could simply allow for a 2nd level "vouch" message to be…
I was worried about sharing broadly and leaking info from 1 contact to another, but it seems like the Signal team did all the right things here. When you create a story you can make it a group story or not. If you do not make it a group story, reactions and replies to stories get sent to you over your 1:1 chats and not shared across other recipients of the story. If you make it a group story, and share it with multip…
I'm still of the opinion that encrypted private group chats are an impossible UX problem (1:1 chat is fine). But if I were to trust anyone to find a way to do it properly, it would be Signal.
We're back full circle. I wonder what's the new, next shiny thing that will attract people. Maybe Zuckerburg is not so crazy after all. If you've seen these TikTok videos 10-15 years ago, you'd think these people should be admitted to a mental institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's accurate. Pretty sure both work the same way regarding metadata. Think about it: if Signal didn't know that A was messaging B, how would they route that message to B's phone? A has to be able to find B's ip address someway. B can't broadcast its ip address to all the Signal users -- that would be a huge security hole. It probably works like this: 1) A sends encrypted message + B's phone number to…
> Think about it: if Signal didn't know that A was messaging B, how would they route that message to B's phone? There is no need for signal to know because their servers are not involved to transport the message but only ip routing infrastructure in between and of course the two parties. That's P2P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's accurate. Pretty sure both work the same way regarding metadata. Think about it: if Signal didn't know that A was messaging B, how would they route that message to B's phone? A has to be able to find B's ip address someway. B can't broadcast its ip address to all the Signal users -- that would be a huge security hole. It probably works like this: 1) A sends encrypted message + B's phone number to…
https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/ Worth reading.