~sircmpwn/public-inbox

1

Re: What should the next chat app look like?

Details
Message ID
<20210407225654.rhgjimfae26gt2ok@rkumarlappie.attlocal.net>
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Hey, loved your article. I'd just like to suggest a couple more things 
for the "next chat app":

- Offline messaging. Peer-to-peer messengers like Jitsi struggle with 
	this.
- Minimal metadata leakage. This is the main privacy-related problem 
	with email, XMPP, and Matrix; it allows servers to build social graphs 
	of users based on interactions. The Signal Protocol doesn't let a 
	server connect senders and recipients, IIRC.

That second point makes Signal much more private than alternatives. It's 
not enough to get me to endorse it (far from), but it's enough to make 
it the only good option for people with a more advanced threat model.  
Which is honestly quite sad.

Plug: I share your views towards Matrix in a bit more detail in another 
article: https://seirdy.one/2021/02/23/keeping-platforms-open.html, a 
follow-up to the "Whatsapp and the domestication of users" article you 
linked in your "Use open platforms -- or else" post. An ecosystem needs 
to be standardized, slow-moving, and simple for it to develop a 
diversity of implementations, and implementation diversity is necessary 
to keep the platform from being controlled by an oligopoly (cf the Web).

-- 
/Seirdy

Re: What should the next chat app look like?

jman
Details
Message ID
<87o8epksiq.fsf@nyarlathotep>
In-Reply-To
<20210407225654.rhgjimfae26gt2ok@rkumarlappie.attlocal.net> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Rohan Kumar <seirdy@seirdy.one> writes:

> An ecosystem needs to be standardized, slow-moving,
> and simple for it to develop a diversity of implementations, and 
> implementation
> diversity is necessary to keep the platform from being controlled by an
> oligopoly (cf the Web).

I also share the sentiment expressed in this comment and in Drew's article:
the Matrix protocol should "slow down" to allow other implementations to
catch up.

Element.io publicly declares[0] that their interest is in building an *open*
ecosystem and not creating a google-like monopoly (i.e. keep things open
but move so fast that nobody can catch up). I'm confident that they will
deliver on this promise. Let's be "vigilant" but also let's don't bash
them on this too much.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26288065
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)