Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

931–940 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#931

Post by BlueTemplar »

growse wrote: post #927
rglullis wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware of their justifications. I'm also aware that centralization brings systemic risks , which they don't talk about. 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…

Signal is so far from being a monopoly that runs "all the world's communications" that these comparisons are essentially meaningless. There's plenty of diversity in the messaging space. Decide your values, choose your compromises, pick your platform. Simple.

Some people avoid platforms out of principle. Look up «protocols, not platforms» if you have never heard of it.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#932

Post by chx »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #920
dragonwriter wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it transphobic? Is it not possible for an organization to do something for money? I am not accusing any particular organization of doing so, but it absolutely should be a legitimate concern/question. In fact, I would consider it transphobic to not call out organizations with ulterior motives.

The reply to my suspicion from the same person was so transphobic it got removed. I can smell these people from a mile away. Fragments of it survive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301956

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#933

Post by BlueTemplar »

bastawhiz wrote: post #898
BlueTemplar wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because code is law, centralized systems that grow bigger than the polity they started in are inherently problematic. See Facebook in Burma/Myanmar as one recent infamous example.

Some centralized systems. But I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that's universally true. Nor is the implication that non-centralized systems don't suffer from similar problems, or other problems which result in substantially bigger drawbacks.

I'm willing to entertain the idea, what would be a counter-example ?

Old enough that the «honemyoon» period is over, say... a decade ?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#934

Post by Obscurity4340 »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #891
andrepd wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the issue is more that there is substantial friction in paying any amount of money, especially in poorer countries with no access to e.g. banking or payment cards. I'm sure no one here, and few people even in comparatively poorer countries, would object if Signal/their messenger of choice cost 0.60$ per year to use. The problem is that making the service have a ~1$/yr price tag (as WhatsApp once had) is itself…

In Pakistan at least, sometimes you can donate to charity etc by texting a special number [1]. That subtracts some fixed amount from your prepaid mobile balance (which the vast majority of people use) or adds to your postpaid bill. I imagine its possible for some business to charge customers this way as well. Then again, instant C2C and C2B digital payments using mobile phones is growing extremely fast in most of the…

Very legal and very cool? Sounds awesome :)

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#935

Post by Obscurity4340 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #429
OoooooooO wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik you can crrate an account without a number.

No. You can just hide it from other users in group chats now (and perhaps 1:1, didn't yet check but you still need one to sign up)

Does that require the sealed-sender thingy?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#936

Post by Zandikar »

emmelaich wrote: post #911
Zandikar wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how being strangers excuses the behavior. You don't have to know each other to cause offense.

I'm not excusing it. I'm saying "do not take it personally" is excellent advice.

Ah, misunderstood, my apologies and agreed.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#937

Post by i8comments »

jwestbury wrote: post #785
jillesvangurp wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the salaries, which I agree are a problem, I think there are a lot of architectural issues that are both costly and not so secure. > We use third-party services to send a registration code via SMS or voice call in order to verify that the person in possession of a given phone number actually intended to sign up for a Signal account. Simple solution, go distributed. 6M $ for that. Stop doing that. What do d…

> which I agree are a problem Are they? These salaries are much lower than most tech competitors. I know we like to call out "high" salaries when a useful service is struggling - but they'll struggle even more if they can't retain good talent because their pay is too low. There's a reason tech skill in government is generally lower than that in industry, for instance.

Salaries for executives in most tech competitors are inflated and should go down, starting with Signal.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#938

Post by Obscurity4340 »

concordDance wrote: post #806
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So...is Wikipedia at the level where they can invest to ensure they're sustained indefinitely?

Wikipedia? Yes easily. Wikimedia? No, they're a money black hole and will eat whatever you give them.

What about Signal? The article they put out is like 30 minutes in my audio reader lol

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#939

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

rengle wrote: post #902
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk man, I think this shit should be between the trans person and their doctor. We already pierce the ears and rip the foreskin off babies, and minors can get boob jobs and nose jobs already. Minors get all manner of drugs prescribed. If a doctor thinks some treatment is appropriate for a kid, okay. If it turns out to be medical malpractice we have the court system for that. Also, I disagree that men in women’s bathr…

> Also, I disagree that men in women's bathrooms is inherently predatory. Frankly, this discriminates against fathers of young children because often one has to bring a daughter into the bathroom or change their infants diaper. I don't agree with you on this, in almost all circumstances they should be using the bathroom appropriate for the sex of the adult, which in this case is the male one. If there genuinely is no…

“How are you gonna enforce this when it primarily harasses the women you claim to protect” isn’t a male claim. Way more women who never experienced male puberty and don’t have/never had a cock and balls are sexually harassed about this shit than trans ever are, just because there’s probably 100x more short-haired small-titty chicks than trans women.

Also, frankly banning fathers from protecting their daughters in bathrooms and changing their diapers is discriminatory. There’s nothing predatory about a dad changing his infants diaper and it’s utterly disgusting to portray it as such. This is precisely the gender discrimination we should be fighting against as a civilized society. Women aren’t fragile creatures who cannot see context and understand what is and isn’t a threat to them, and men aren’t inherently dangerous for not even interacting with women just being attentive fathers! This is so insulting to both sexes, I can’t even.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#940

Post by rengle »

chx wrote: post #930
lannisterstark wrote: post #884

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?

The reply to my suspicion was so transphobic it got removed. I can smell these people from a mile away. Fragments of it survive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301956

My reply was calling out your ridiculous and hyperbolic claims of "genocide", and examining the reality behind the euphemism.
Post reply on HN