Crazy how decentralization improves both, but they are vehemently against that. I trust them in terms of privacy, but their insistence on centralization, blocking third party apps, removing SMS, and refusal to support fdroid, I'm not a fan of the direction they've gone recently.
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
604 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59457 readers
3211 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fr. Fuck signal for removing SMS support
I assume that is exactly for one of the reasons they mentioned in the article: increasing costs for sms
Wait. Signal was an SMS client. It wouldn't cost them anything for a user to send an SMS message. IIRC, they nixed the SMS feature for security reasons, not cost.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yeah I think you are right. I too was really mad at Signal for ditching sms, and THEN having the audacity to ask for donations! This article shines a light on the reasons, wow.
Still, I would only donate if they kept sms in there. Not without sms because now it's just one more isolated platform and no longer a one-stop solution at it used to be.
The sms cost is for account creation and verification on new devices, being an sms client didn't cost anything aside from maintaining that portion of the app
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Removing SMS support makes sense. The potential for a user sending something through SMS that they thought was going over Signal is high. Even for the savvier users who would install Signal in the first place.
It killed adoption, since now it's just another messaging app. Most of my contacts still use SMS, and will stay on it, so being able to use Signal was a smooth all-in-one experience. Now I have no point in keeping it installed because like 3 of my contacts use it, so it has no use to me, thus killing potential adoption.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
A more accurate title could be "Privacy is Priceless, but Centralization is Expensive": with the era of cheap money coming to an end, grows a lot of uncertainty regarding the future of some large internet services. Signal is no exception and this emphasises the importance of federated alternatives (XMPP, fediverse, …) for the good health of the future internet.
Decentralization is expensive too judging by some of the sentiment I've seen around running Mastodon and Lemmy/Kbin instances.
Right? People simply expect someone else to pay the bills.
And why wouldn't they? 90% of the software people use daily is free (as in beer), so of course being told that's going to change is going to cause upset. It takes a lot for people to want to pay money for something that, to those who don't value free (as in freedom) software, is no different than the costless alternative.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Decentralisation would just spread the costs over more individuals. Those individuals would have to collect contributions from their respective communities. The total amount people who would have to chip in to make the system sustainable won't change dramatically. Decentralisation isn't some magic wand that makes infrastructure and labor costs disappear into thin air.
Decentralisation would just spread the costs
...the costs and the risks: let's jump forward a few years into financing issues, at what point does Signal become a liability and start operating against their stated mission, if the alternative is that they cannot survive? We are witnessing enough contemporary examples of enshittification to know that it's a real possibility, and that all centralized providers, but in particular the ones not charging for service, are at risk.
Some would even argue that this has already started in the case of Signal with their crypto payments and blocking of 3rd party clients which are clearly user-hostile.
Those individuals would have to collect contributions from their respective communities.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Running costs get exponential with scale. You can host 1000 users on a shoebox computer/raspberry pi, but delivering a service for millions requires datacenter-level infrastructure and tons of engineering know-how.
Most people into self hosting or having a NAS at home can already accommodate their families, friends and more, which means millions of potential users, without the problem of trust from a single organization
load more comments
(9 replies)
The cost of these registration services for verifying phone numbers when people first install Signal, or when they re-register on a new device, currently averages around $6 million dollars per year.
That's pretty crazy. Wonder which third party providers they are using. Maybe the identity verification methods we have today is due for some significant changes?
Without SMS verification, spam would be so much worse that they've been kind of obliged to keep it, even though it defeats/undoes most of the privacy features they like to advertise about
Step 1. Make it federative Step 2. Stop fucking hosting your shit on Amazon servers. Step 3. Profit
Even if they federated (which I doubt they will do), someone would have to foot the bill for those servers. Same thing on lemmy, someone's eating the server costs here even if it isn't a major corporation.
I kind of liked WhatsApp’s initial monetization model. It was free for the first year and then $1 per year after that. With 400 million users, that’s a good chunk of change. Assuming only 25% of people would pay, that’s still a good chunk of change. I think Signal should adopt something similar.
I think just like Proton provides free services for the greater good, Signal should do something similar. Even special emojis works well IMO. They give you a badge at least
load more comments
(1 replies)
They should post a average price per user so we'll know what's the minimum to donate (probably 5$ which is the minimum in the app IIRC)
"As of January 2022, the platform had approximately 40 million monthly active users."[0]
In 2022 they had $30M expenses, so the cost is somewhat under $1/user/year.
They said the minimum donation is there to reduce the viability of scammers using it to check if a stolen credit card number is valid.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Make the server open source maybe?
Did i confuse something?
Well, thanks!
Signal isn't a federated protocol, so even if they were incentivized to release all the server bits and pieces, it would not help. You could run your own, but wouldn't be able to reach-out to your friends running theirs.
pUt iT oN tHe BlOcKcHaiN bRo!
Ehhhh
Signal lost a lot of my love when they removed SMS support
Get with the times.
Signal stands for privacy and not selling your data to be spied on and sold, and you're STILL using SMS, spam ridden, high cost, old infrastructure, easily read, technology.
I suppose you want email in your Signal client too?
It's not about that. It's about moving people over.
You know why RCS is picking up steam? Because it's 1 app. If the person you're talking to has RCS, you'll send messages via RCS. If they don't, it'll fall back to SMS. If RCS was a separate app from SMS, adoption would be really low.
Older people especially don't want to juggle 2 apps. If you get your dad on signal, and then his friend who uses SMS messages him, he'll be back in his SMS app and won't go back to signal, meaning the next time he messages you, or anyone else that has signal, he'll instead just send an SMS since he's already in the SMS app.
Removing SMS fallback was a surefire way to kill adoption of signal.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Especially when your identity on Signal is STILL only tied to a phone number, instead of a username, and there is nothing less private than actually giving out your real phone number.
Absolutely baffling.
I heard they gonna introduce usernames for sharing your acc. but to make one u still need a phone to create an acc. which I understand.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Giving out a phone number harms anonymity, which is something they never claimed to give you.
I'd like not having to use my number as much as you, but lets be angry about it for the right reasons, at least
sms is useless tho?
it's basically a confirmation code delivery system, with some ads and spam
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
What is a better alternative than signal?
Try out any of these:
- Session @session
- SimpleX @simplex
- Threema @threemaapp
They all don't require a phone number, which makes them immediately better than Signal, for devices that don't have a SIM.
load more comments
(13 replies)
view more: next ›