All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
[…] starting with Signal in the first place doesn’t make sense to me.
If you have the means to choose something more secure/trustworthy/robust than Signal, then I think it would be in your best interest to do so! I personally would recommend SimpleX, if possible.
[…] And it’s proven because they’ve already [“nuked” communications] before. […]
Would you mind providing a source of this? This sounds interesting, and good to know.
For reliability, I’m not concerned with how much RAM Signal’s servers have. […]
I’m not sure that I understand this statement. What does RAM have to do with with Signal’s infrastructure reliability?
[…] What I should have highlighted is that Signal can nuke your communications on accident / on purpose / under coercion. […]
Are you referring to the possibility that they may be able to block communications, as they are a centralized service?
I don’t buy the point about metadata when Signal […] may be able to scrape it […]
I agree that it it within the realm of possibility, but, imo, this is independently verifiable, as the Signal apps are open-source [1][2][3] and offer reproducible builds (except iOS [2.1]) [1.1][3.1]. See this section on Signal’s metadata for some more concrete information [4].
It’s a one time fee for personal.
Ah, so there is! [1][2[3]] I didn’t notice that. Thank you for pointing out that inconsistency in my previous comment; what I stated was conjecture, and, lo and behold, it turned out to be wrong.
Threema Libre is available exclusively via F-Droid. It requires a Threema Shop license, and the F-Droid app needs to be installed on your Android device.
I don’t understand how exactly this differs from something like Tor.
When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…
Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.
[…] for […] brevity. […]
I don’t agree that citing sources affects that. For example, anecdotally, a citation can just take the form of a footnote in the document.
[…] for practicality […]
Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.
Well, presumably, that’s their job [1]. Being responsible takes effort /s.
A reporter is a type of journalist who researches, writes and reports on information in order to present using sources. […]
Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts […]
Imo, this in an example of an appeal to authority — an argument isn’t sound because it should be, but because it is. I believe that it’s a disservice to the truth and constructive public discourse to not cite one’s claims.
Good catch. Given that that it’s currently still available [1], I would guess that it’s likely not the case that Google is purging reviews. Imo, one review is hardly review bombing, but at least that’s proof of one claim made by a news outlet [2] (It’s terrible, imo, that we have to be the ones fact checking claims being made by news organizations. Doesn’t that make us the journalists?).
Users left reviews for at least three McDonald’s locations in or around Altoona, Pennsylvania, with dozens of people leaving one star ratings and complaining about “rats.” Others more explicitly called out “snitches.”
If you’re willing to believe a couple of random news outlets:
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/altoona-mcdonalds-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/9/altoona-pennsylvania-mcdonald-reviews-go-negative-/
Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it’s annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don’t want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.
Not hard to imagine thag G**gle would be on the case, deleting reviews by now.
Fair point.
I don’t understand how signal intends to pay for servers forever with voluntary donations.
I think donations can be sustainable if the service in question is handled correctly. Imo, federation/decentralization would improve this, as it wouldn’t place the cost burden on a single entity.
I almost think that’s a pro. I don’t understand how signal intends to pay for servers forever with voluntary donations.
In the same vein, a privately owned service, to me, is rather suspect if it is free of cost — the money’s gotta come from somewhere.
Is that an “agree” as in you hadn’t considered what I said, or that you agree to that in addition? If it was the latter, I should clarify that I wasn’t adding supplementary information — I was outlining what I thought was a flaw in your rationale (eg argument from ignorance) for distrust in Signal.
Is that true? I just checked the reviews for all of the McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania on Google Maps [4] and none of them appear to have been review bombed recently or have any mention of the UHI shooter [1][2][3].
But I’d also view a singular commercial company’s no-cost product as not being a long term bet on privacy/anonymity.
Oh I completely agree with the idea that a federated service, like Matrix [1], is far preferable to a centralized one, eg Discord [2]; I have no issue with using Matrix (I personally use it extensively) I just think one should be careful with the idea of using it with the intent of being anonymous.
Matrix defines a set of open APIs for decentralised communication, suitable for securely publishing, persisting and subscribing to data over a global open federation of servers with no single point of control. […]
What a day to have eyes.