911–920 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With respect you are misinterpreting personally here. They don't know you; they don't know me. I'm a nobody, just like you.
I fail to see how being strangers excuses the behavior. You don't have to know each other to cause offense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm kind of happy to don't see Moxie with such rockstar salary as for instance the CTO one..
From the same link, it seems like his compensation was much higher in all the preceding years. Not sure what changed this year, but I agree it's a bit refreshing to see. Especially since he's probably made good money throughout his career
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I donated to the Southern Poverty Law Center a few years ago. A physical address was a required field on the donation form. I have never stopped regretting it, because GODDAMN! They started hammering me with physical mail asking for more money immediately and have not stopped.
Just curious why you used an address that's associated with you. Choosing the address of a place like a park, which is a real address that has no mailbox or direct association with you, ought to be the default if you don't want to be spammed to hell and back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're moving the goal post from "self-sovereignty" to supports federation with an infinite number of servers. Nothing is stopping you from compiling your own Signal server and modifying a Signal client to use your server. Given that Signal is free as a service, supporting federation only increases their expenses.
Without federation, Signal is still working with the advantage of network effects. So an open source server is not enough of a way out. Element can do it for their Matrix servers. Process.one can do it for ejabberd. Prosody as well. Why can't Signal?
They've talked about this, a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Federation can only make security worse and I do not want it. You can have something else.
Security is extremely important, but it is not the only concern one should have when considering the design of a global communications infrastructure. I worry a lot more about not having one single actor responsible in dealing for the communication of millions of people than about "quantum-resistant encryption".
I'm glad you worry about this. Me and other people have other priorities.
You're putting an awful lot of effort into projecting your values onto other people, which is a bit weird.
Perhaps they should try with a p2p approach, where every client provides bandwidth, storage, compute, in exchange for using the app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without federation, Signal is still working with the advantage of network effects. So an open source server is not enough of a way out. Element can do it for their Matrix servers. Process.one can do it for ejabberd. Prosody as well. Why can't Signal?
Because centralisation provides ecosystem agility , which they absolutely value as an upside. Find a way of doing post-quantum secure key exchange? Just roll it out to the server and all the clients essentially overnight. They've talked about this, a lot.
The internet would be a lot more efficient and able to evolve if we just had it controlled by one single entity like Google or Microsoft. Do you think is a good idea to do that?
The economy would be a lot more efficient and allocation of resources could be a lot more fair if we could put it all in the hands of one single corporation or government. Do you think it's a good idea to do that?
Agricultural output would improve significantly if all crops used the exact same genetic strain and if all soil was artificially managed. Do you think it's a good idea to do that?
In case you are wondering, "ability to quickly roll out post-quantum key exchange" is waaaaay down the list of my worries compared to "facing a catastrophic Black Swan affecting all of the world's communications".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Security is extremely important, but it is not the only concern one should have when considering the design of a global communications infrastructure. I worry a lot more about not having one single actor responsible in dealing for the communication of millions of people than about "quantum-resistant encryption".
> I worry a lot more about not having one single actor responsible in dealing for the communication of millions of people than about "quantum-resistant encryption I'm glad you worry about this. Me and other people have other priorities. You're putting an awful lot of effort into projecting your values onto other people, which is a bit weird.
Did you watch "The Big Short"? You are sounding like one of those jocks-turned-real-estate agents that are bragging about how easy it is to make money and thinking the analysts were idiots.
> You're putting an awful lot of effort into projecting your values onto other people.
We live in a world where people are bullied for not using iPhones and showing up with different bubble colors on the chat apps and family members will refuse to call you on the phone and only accept you if you use WhatsApp.
All I am saying is "please let's not collectively put ourselves in the hands of any single entity". Are you sure I'm the one projecting values, here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I don’t want participants to know my phone number. They're currently in the testing phase of allowing phone numbers not be known by your conversation partners: https://community.signalusers.org/t/public-username-testing-...
You still need to register with a phone number though. Until that's no longer a requirement, I'm personally not using Signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it transphobic to say organizations focused on LGBTQ shifted their alignment for the one part that isn't widely accepted in developed because others for the most part are?
Its a transphobic conspiracy theory to say, as moravak1984 explicitly did upthread, that they did it for money not because its an actual real issue where they perceive an injustice, whereas the issues where they've already won, and thus are shifting some attention from, are not, or less so, specifically because they have succeeded in shifting the situation on the ground.
In fact, I would consider it transphobic to not call out organizations with ulterior motives.