I really like the idea of creating a decentralized network that has a fair monetization model built right in, instead of relying on donations like the Fediverse. Crypto got a very bad rep, but this kind of stuff is exactly what it’s good for imo.

It also has some core features that are missing from other similar messengers, like multi-device sync. And lastly, the devs seem pretty capable and open as well. They are very transparent with their work and seem to have the right ideas about where things should go and which trade-offs to make. E.g. their reasoning for not using the Signal protocol seems solid to me.

So I’m hopeful, but time will tell if it all works out.

It can be a bit annoying sometimes, but there are solutions for almost anything, like alternative clients and frontends. I also think it’s important to remember that this is not an all-or-nothing situation. Every little bit of privacy you can preserve helps, even if you still have to use their services sometimes.

If your example is mostly about chat then Beeper might be a good option for you. The messages on FB and IG would still go through Meta, but at least you don’t have to install their apps.

It’s hard to overstate what a nothing-burger this article really is! Let me break it down:

• Signal got $3 million from the Open Technology Fund at some point in its development
• Some anonymous source alleges that the OTF’s ultimate goal is to promote US foreign interests
• The current chairman of the board Katherine Maher worked at the National Democratic Institute and Wikipedia before
• The same anonymous source says she was recruited because of connections to the OTF
• She has at some point voiced the opinion that a completely free internet without regulation just reproduces existing power structures, and that balancing regulation and 1st amendment rights is a tough problem
• Signal doesn’t have reproducible builds on iOS (it absolutely does on Android btw)
• Some people feel like Signal chats come up more often than they should in court cases and media reports

That’s it, that’s the whole story. That’s the reason why the Telegram guy of all people thinks you should be careful, and better use his chat service instead, and the Twitter guy agrees.

I mean, reproducible builds on iOS would be nice, but that platform has much bigger problems from a privacy/security/sovereignty/freedom standpoint anyway. And the rest is just nothing turned up to 11.

I think some of the arguments are quite flawed. Bitcoin itself has most of the properties it is said to have, but it lives in a world that doesn’t and so some only really apply if you manage to stay inside the system. Like, your Signal chats are private as long as you don’t copy-paste them to Facebook.

Regarding self-custody/decentralization and using custodial services: The problem here is not that those properties don’t apply to Bitcoin, but that some people just choose to give away control over their wallets or not use Bitcoin itself for certain transactions. Can’t blame that on the currency, unless you think it can’t be done any other way.

Regarding privacy: I don’t think any serious “Bitcoiner” advertises Bitcoin as private. The message has always been that it’s “pseudonymous”, that you have to take extra steps in order to make it anonymous, and that it’s transparent instead of private by design.

Regarding transparency/inclusion: These paragraphs actually argue about privacy again. One is trying to spin the existing transparency into a negative, which is a valid opinion but not something “Bitcoiners” are wrong about. The other circles back to the idea of staying inside the system. Bitcoin transactions are inclusive, but ofc you can still get into trouble if you have to fear external repercussions and can’t stay anonymous.

pay for it with advertising your data

FTFY.

That part is not allowed according to the GDPR afaik, the decision about your personal data cannot be artificially linked to something else. They can absolutely show ads, but without using your data.

From what I understand the GDPR says you have to give users a real choice about the usage of their data, without any unreasonable negative repercussions. Having to pay money (at least as much as they are asking for) is such an unacceptable repercussion, no matter how FB might phrase it.

They are allowed to take money or show ads for access, but they can’t couple that decision with the one about the user’s data usage.

The video is probably factually correct, but very disingenuous with its interpretations and conclusions imo.

Of course Mozilla and Firefox have their own share of problems and bad decisions, and they are pretty well known and talked about from what I’ve seen, but equating it to Google and Chrome is just pure cynicism. Mozilla having to earn money somehow (1% donations!) and Google trying to maximize profits at all costs is not the same thing, even if it might look similar sometimes.

Please try to request the source code with that screenshot!

Clickbait headline. The underlying article lists much more reasonable restrictions:

• Anonymous cash payments over €3,000 will be banned in commercial transactions
• Cash payments over €10,000 will even be completely banned in business transactions
• Anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies to wallets operated by providers will be prohibited

So non-commercial transations are fine, as are crypto transactions to non-custodial wallets.

They also released a Fossify messenger and contacts app. You might have to enable or refresh the IzzyOnDroid repo to see them now, or wait until they come to the default F-Droid repo.

Wtf?! No reason to get insulting.

No way the Fedora user figured out how to configure partitions in the installer without having to google it at least five times! I’ve installed Fedora a few times over the years, and that UI still makes no sense to me!