Because of the ongoing fucktastrophe, the cries of "Use SIGNAL!" are constant and unavoidable. And I get it, it may be the least-bad option in a sea of terrible options. If, that is, you choose to ignore the advice of "don't use your phone for that shit" (the Stringer Bell Rule). But out of curiosity, because I haven't been keeping up, has the Signal Corporation addressed: The fact that they ...
There are six bullet points. Which ones are no longer true?
The only one I know of is point 4, in that you can now choose not to share your phone number. But, IIUC, the app uses the dark pattern of forever nagging you to share it, hoping you’ll eventually accidentally click the wrong choice.
Unless Signal’s policies recently changed, Molly is not interoperable, since Signal does not allow third-party clients to use their servers/network. That would make point 2 correct.
If that policy has changed, then someone please link the announcement so I can update my notes.
They’ve been allowing Molly to continue to function for multiple years. Notably, from Molly’s readme:
Molly connects to Signal’s servers, so you can chat with your Signal contacts seamlessly.
I looked over the terms of service linked there and don’t see anything specifically calling out third party clients. Is that elsewhere in another terms page somewhere or is it just not being specifically mentioned?
It was a few years ago when I read Signal’s statement about this, so I’m afraid I don’t have a link for you.
I believe you when you say Molly functions, but it’s important to note that without Signal’s blessing, anyone using Molly can be locked out of the network (and their chats and contacts) at any moment. It’s not the same as official interoperability.
I wonder if the Digital Markets Act will eventually force it.
Absolutely, and I’m not trying to say they don’t own their infra or have the ability to cut off the Molly users. Luckily, if that were to happen, you could use the automated backups to restore back into Signal, since they’re functionally the same.
Regardless, both apps have reproducible builds. It’s the infra that isn’t reproducible.
If they have such “security concerns” with third-party clients, a compromise would be to mark profiles using unofficial clients, and make it possible to see what client it is. Because it’s audacious to disapprove of third-party ones while your own lacks features people find important! Such as:
Allowing an arbitrary proxy rather than just their own solution (because not only is their own solution inferior to some of the more advanced censorship-evading technology, but this is the field that needs multiple options when one stops working. Also if a person uses a proxy for everything else anyway, making them set up a whole separate solution or find someone else’s proxy just for your app is pointless.
UnifiedPush.
Allowing tying a desktop client by typing a code rather than scanning a QR code, which is important when registering on an Android VM (because again, Signal just arbitrarily disallows account creation on a desktop, nevermind that most phones are very hard or impossible to make private!)
4 and 5, from what I remember you have to opt into being discoverable by number even if you give it your contacts.
that said I don’t fw signal for the other reasons stated, it’s basically just the easiest secure alternative to texting.
2 is probably wrong. Molly exists. Trademark cannot be used to prevent other implementations, just the use of the name or other dress. What may not be open is the server side code and federation is not supported.
There are six bullet points. Which ones are no longer true?
The only one I know of is point 4, in that you can now choose not to share your phone number. But, IIUC, the app uses the dark pattern of forever nagging you to share it, hoping you’ll eventually accidentally click the wrong choice.
Point 2 is mostly not true, in that Molly exists and you can do reproducible builds with either implementation.
Unless Signal’s policies recently changed, Molly is not interoperable, since Signal does not allow third-party clients to use their servers/network. That would make point 2 correct.
If that policy has changed, then someone please link the announcement so I can update my notes.
They’ve been allowing Molly to continue to function for multiple years. Notably, from Molly’s readme:
I looked over the terms of service linked there and don’t see anything specifically calling out third party clients. Is that elsewhere in another terms page somewhere or is it just not being specifically mentioned?
It was a few years ago when I read Signal’s statement about this, so I’m afraid I don’t have a link for you.
I believe you when you say Molly functions, but it’s important to note that without Signal’s blessing, anyone using Molly can be locked out of the network (and their chats and contacts) at any moment. It’s not the same as official interoperability.
I wonder if the Digital Markets Act will eventually force it.
Absolutely, and I’m not trying to say they don’t own their infra or have the ability to cut off the Molly users. Luckily, if that were to happen, you could use the automated backups to restore back into Signal, since they’re functionally the same.
Regardless, both apps have reproducible builds. It’s the infra that isn’t reproducible.
If they have such “security concerns” with third-party clients, a compromise would be to mark profiles using unofficial clients, and make it possible to see what client it is. Because it’s audacious to disapprove of third-party ones while your own lacks features people find important! Such as:
To be fair, from Signal’s attitude it seems that Molly is tolerated rather than welcomed. And that it may be shut off if it gets big enough.
4 and 5, from what I remember you have to opt into being discoverable by number even if you give it your contacts. that said I don’t fw signal for the other reasons stated, it’s basically just the easiest secure alternative to texting.
I use the Signal a lot and have never been nagged to share my phone number.
2 is probably wrong. Molly exists. Trademark cannot be used to prevent other implementations, just the use of the name or other dress. What may not be open is the server side code and federation is not supported.