▲ 2015 ▼ Happy #GlobalSwitchDay (discuss.tchncs.de) submitted 2 years ago by squirrel@discuss.tchncs.de to c/fediverse@lemmy.world 489 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] potentiallynotfelix@lemmy.fish 47 points 2 years ago (2 children) Signal is centralized, loops is closed source and not accepting new users. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Esmoreit@lemmings.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Loops will be open sourced later they say. Is Loops open source? It will be! We plan on open sourcing the platform after it reaches a stable and easy to maintain state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tempest@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 years ago (2 children) That really is not a satisfying answer. It is incredibly nebulous and even if it did have a nice definition I guarantee most software developers will tell you a lot of software rarely reaches that state. I can see why they might want to avoid 1000 GitHub issues bike shedding things but they could open source the code and just not have open contribution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago or they can also disable submitting issues for now permalink fedilink source parent [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sometimes you’re ashamed of the ugly hacks you cobbled together to reach MVP, and you want to fix the stuff you know you need to fix first before being thrown to the wolves. I can respect that, for a limited time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* I mean maybe but you could also just say "we did some whacky shit here help us fix it please" and let the community help you in the effort. That's the beauty of open source. Then again they may have their reasons and frankly I'm not even interested in a TikTok like social media so w/e as long as they don't eat up their word it's fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] potentiallynotfelix@lemmy.fish 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) That means very little to me. Actions speak louder than words, and it would probably help the development of loops if it was actually open source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Made by the same dev as Pixelfed, which did a similar thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago Which I think dansup should deserve our trust on this for quite a long time for doing. It isn't empty promises if they already made Pixelfed and opensourced it. Like.. I suppose it could be a grift, anything could but I see no reason to question their goals or motives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 point 2 years ago For a lot of FLOSS projects, it's common to keep the initial team small, so a product can be delivered fast, and gets opened up later. It's to solve the "too many cooks" and prevent bikeshedding. A lot of corpo espionage is there solely to tank potential competitors, which include FLOSS projects. permalink fedilink source parent [–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Loops is anti-libre software confirmed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago anti? is it against libre software? because it doesn't seem so permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevo887@lemmings.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why does software have a political stance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) It's missing a libre software licence text file. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Matrix it is? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I was told that unless you self host, matrix is less secure because it leaks more metadata. Something to consider permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] callyral@pawb.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Leaks more metadata? What does that mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago sender, recipient, chatroom, what kind of event you sent (message, emoji, reaction, vote), if you responded to a message, room privilege changes, etc but it's a question how big of a problem is that. they want to tackle it in the future, but that's far away for now I think permalink fedilink source parent [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Damm, didn't know that, good to know permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) it's not even true information, the new tech stack is zero trust permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Esmoreit@lemmings.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Loops will be open sourced later they say. Is Loops open source? It will be! We plan on open sourcing the platform after it reaches a stable and easy to maintain state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tempest@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 years ago (2 children) That really is not a satisfying answer. It is incredibly nebulous and even if it did have a nice definition I guarantee most software developers will tell you a lot of software rarely reaches that state. I can see why they might want to avoid 1000 GitHub issues bike shedding things but they could open source the code and just not have open contribution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago or they can also disable submitting issues for now permalink fedilink source parent [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sometimes you’re ashamed of the ugly hacks you cobbled together to reach MVP, and you want to fix the stuff you know you need to fix first before being thrown to the wolves. I can respect that, for a limited time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* I mean maybe but you could also just say "we did some whacky shit here help us fix it please" and let the community help you in the effort. That's the beauty of open source. Then again they may have their reasons and frankly I'm not even interested in a TikTok like social media so w/e as long as they don't eat up their word it's fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] potentiallynotfelix@lemmy.fish 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) That means very little to me. Actions speak louder than words, and it would probably help the development of loops if it was actually open source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Made by the same dev as Pixelfed, which did a similar thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago Which I think dansup should deserve our trust on this for quite a long time for doing. It isn't empty promises if they already made Pixelfed and opensourced it. Like.. I suppose it could be a grift, anything could but I see no reason to question their goals or motives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 point 2 years ago For a lot of FLOSS projects, it's common to keep the initial team small, so a product can be delivered fast, and gets opened up later. It's to solve the "too many cooks" and prevent bikeshedding. A lot of corpo espionage is there solely to tank potential competitors, which include FLOSS projects. permalink fedilink source parent [–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Loops is anti-libre software confirmed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago anti? is it against libre software? because it doesn't seem so permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevo887@lemmings.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why does software have a political stance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) It's missing a libre software licence text file. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 years ago (2 children) That really is not a satisfying answer. It is incredibly nebulous and even if it did have a nice definition I guarantee most software developers will tell you a lot of software rarely reaches that state. I can see why they might want to avoid 1000 GitHub issues bike shedding things but they could open source the code and just not have open contribution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago or they can also disable submitting issues for now permalink fedilink source parent [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sometimes you’re ashamed of the ugly hacks you cobbled together to reach MVP, and you want to fix the stuff you know you need to fix first before being thrown to the wolves. I can respect that, for a limited time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* I mean maybe but you could also just say "we did some whacky shit here help us fix it please" and let the community help you in the effort. That's the beauty of open source. Then again they may have their reasons and frankly I'm not even interested in a TikTok like social media so w/e as long as they don't eat up their word it's fine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago or they can also disable submitting issues for now permalink fedilink source parent
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sometimes you’re ashamed of the ugly hacks you cobbled together to reach MVP, and you want to fix the stuff you know you need to fix first before being thrown to the wolves. I can respect that, for a limited time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* I mean maybe but you could also just say "we did some whacky shit here help us fix it please" and let the community help you in the effort. That's the beauty of open source. Then again they may have their reasons and frankly I'm not even interested in a TikTok like social media so w/e as long as they don't eat up their word it's fine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* I mean maybe but you could also just say "we did some whacky shit here help us fix it please" and let the community help you in the effort. That's the beauty of open source. Then again they may have their reasons and frankly I'm not even interested in a TikTok like social media so w/e as long as they don't eat up their word it's fine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] potentiallynotfelix@lemmy.fish 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) That means very little to me. Actions speak louder than words, and it would probably help the development of loops if it was actually open source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Made by the same dev as Pixelfed, which did a similar thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago Which I think dansup should deserve our trust on this for quite a long time for doing. It isn't empty promises if they already made Pixelfed and opensourced it. Like.. I suppose it could be a grift, anything could but I see no reason to question their goals or motives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 point 2 years ago For a lot of FLOSS projects, it's common to keep the initial team small, so a product can be delivered fast, and gets opened up later. It's to solve the "too many cooks" and prevent bikeshedding. A lot of corpo espionage is there solely to tank potential competitors, which include FLOSS projects. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Made by the same dev as Pixelfed, which did a similar thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago Which I think dansup should deserve our trust on this for quite a long time for doing. It isn't empty promises if they already made Pixelfed and opensourced it. Like.. I suppose it could be a grift, anything could but I see no reason to question their goals or motives. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago Which I think dansup should deserve our trust on this for quite a long time for doing. It isn't empty promises if they already made Pixelfed and opensourced it. Like.. I suppose it could be a grift, anything could but I see no reason to question their goals or motives. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 point 2 years ago For a lot of FLOSS projects, it's common to keep the initial team small, so a product can be delivered fast, and gets opened up later. It's to solve the "too many cooks" and prevent bikeshedding. A lot of corpo espionage is there solely to tank potential competitors, which include FLOSS projects. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Loops is anti-libre software confirmed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago anti? is it against libre software? because it doesn't seem so permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevo887@lemmings.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why does software have a political stance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) It's missing a libre software licence text file. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago anti? is it against libre software? because it doesn't seem so permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stevo887@lemmings.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why does software have a political stance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) It's missing a libre software licence text file. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) It's missing a libre software licence text file. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Matrix it is? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I was told that unless you self host, matrix is less secure because it leaks more metadata. Something to consider permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] callyral@pawb.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Leaks more metadata? What does that mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago sender, recipient, chatroom, what kind of event you sent (message, emoji, reaction, vote), if you responded to a message, room privilege changes, etc but it's a question how big of a problem is that. they want to tackle it in the future, but that's far away for now I think permalink fedilink source parent [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Damm, didn't know that, good to know permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) it's not even true information, the new tech stack is zero trust permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I was told that unless you self host, matrix is less secure because it leaks more metadata. Something to consider permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] callyral@pawb.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Leaks more metadata? What does that mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago sender, recipient, chatroom, what kind of event you sent (message, emoji, reaction, vote), if you responded to a message, room privilege changes, etc but it's a question how big of a problem is that. they want to tackle it in the future, but that's far away for now I think permalink fedilink source parent [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Damm, didn't know that, good to know permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) it's not even true information, the new tech stack is zero trust permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] callyral@pawb.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Leaks more metadata? What does that mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago sender, recipient, chatroom, what kind of event you sent (message, emoji, reaction, vote), if you responded to a message, room privilege changes, etc but it's a question how big of a problem is that. they want to tackle it in the future, but that's far away for now I think permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago sender, recipient, chatroom, what kind of event you sent (message, emoji, reaction, vote), if you responded to a message, room privilege changes, etc but it's a question how big of a problem is that. they want to tackle it in the future, but that's far away for now I think permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Damm, didn't know that, good to know permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) it's not even true information, the new tech stack is zero trust permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) it's not even true information, the new tech stack is zero trust permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
