top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 50 points 1 month ago

GitHub commit d7447b1 states that “accounts without phone numbers can never get phone numbers, and accounts with them can never lose them”.

So you’ll have to register a new account if you want to decouple your number.

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    didn’t they announce this like five years ago

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    At this point, if it’s on a phone app, it probably doesn’t matter. They have your number.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    It's not entirely dystopian (just barely), we have newer messengers like SimpleX and DeltaChat (I/we use Delta) on the up and coming which deliver on all the same e2ee promises as Signal. It's just network effects as usual, getting people to try is the real hurdle.

    What they share in common (mostly) is the architecture - they're built natively decentralized, utilizing caching relays with no single source of truth, or device of truth, to be used to create a profile of you like a phone number does. Encryption keys owned by the user and no single servers. Generally this is the Nostr design as well, so we have 3 different teams all focusing on the same natively decentralized architecture patterns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Is any of these apps good for phone calls or video calls, or just text messages?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I started self-hosting xmpp recently, and the calls work perfectly! You don't need to self-host either, there are plenty of public servers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    I tried XMPP but could not find a client that let me have a "video call" where I could share my screen without also needing a webcam. Or even have a video call where not everyone is forced to have a video flux. As far as I can tell an audio call cannot be turned into a video call for 1 streamer.

    Like in Discord where one want to share its screen while playing. XNPP was my biggest hope to replace Discord with my friend but I either did not find the correct client or the ecosystem is not mature enough (or oriented in the direction I expected).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yeah, screensharing is not a thing in most clients, but I think it's a matter of time (years?) before it's properly implemented. In the meantime, you can use jitsi meet? Not sure if it covers your use case. I'll just copy this reddit comment, which has some good info:

    Yes, it’s possible, but with some limitations. For video calls between a Linux and a Windows client using ejabberd, you need an XMPP client that supports WebRTC. Some options: • Dino (Linux) – Supports video calls but no screen sharing. • Gajim (Linux/Windows) – Can do video calls with plugins, but no screen sharing. • Jitsi (XMPP mode) – Supports WebRTC and screen sharing but requires a separate Jitsi server. Since most XMPP clients don’t natively support screen sharing, you have two main options: 1. Use Jitsi Meet, which integrates with XMPP and allows both video calls and screen sharing. 2. Use OBS VirtualCam (on Windows) to share the screen as a “camera” in a video call. If you want a fully functional setup with both video calls and screen sharing, setting up Jitsi Meet with ejabberd is the best approach.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Arcane chat (a delta chat client) offers video/audio calls as well

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    I mean, they also were developing usernames five years ago AFAIK. Adding usernames for everyone was the hard, but necessary step they finally managed to do. Only now is it possible to make accounts that are discoverable AND aren't tethered to phone numbers. I'm assuming with passkeys/TOTP(?)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Bullllllllshit.

    They've said that for years. It's easy to do. But they won't do it

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    just go the matrix route; username, password, 2fa, then any other connection requires you to verify with a current logged in session (or recovery code).

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    As someone who uses matrix and runs a matrix server, matrix fucking suuuucks jfc why are so many privacy tools soooooo bad at what they do on so many levels like wtf the proto the servers the clients the ux the metadata issues like so much wrong

    Edit: and if anyone tells me to use XMPP I'll slap them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I don't understand why an email registration is not an option? it was the default from when online services and apps appeared in the first place, and until about 5 years ago (depending on types of services/apps), and it's security and anonymity was purely based on you using your "main" address or a throwaway.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    I would guess the sudden influx of massive amounts of traffic would force them to charge for the service, and they don't want to do that. Requiring a phone number, while invasive to some, does cut down on a tremendous amount of automated/bot/spam traffic.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Boy... We are going to get spammed.

    I never understood the "phone numbers are evil" people, whining about signal requiring them. As soon as this arrives, they will find another thing to whine about.

    Hopefully Signal will make it possible to block any and all communications from people wohtout a phone number, unless I reach out to them. And that that feature also be introduced to groups. Because otherwise maintaining public groups is going to be turboshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    mobile numbers require government identification in many countries. But yeah, not seeing an easy solution to the spam problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    mobile numbers require government identification in many countries

    Yes and all they will know is "person A has installed signal". Nothing more. If you haven't degoogled tour phone or use one with a fruity logo, the government knows that you have the app already. It won't need phone number.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    huh? you can't see the difference between a grapheneos burner linked to a gov ID backed phone number and one that isn't?

    like what happens when you go to a protest and they pull out a Stingray and get your IMEI+ICCID down that's directly linked to you? you're telling me you don't see any issues with cops/ICE being able to know exactly who goes where?

    this has strong "I don't need freedom of speech because I have nothing to say" vibes - it's fine if you don't see the value but I can assure there very much is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›