• AprilF00lz@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    besides that, and besides the lack of forward secrecy on matrix and session already mentioned by privacy guides, do some of these alternatives have worse security, privacy, or ux than signal in some way?

    • Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      both have worse UX than Signal. pretty much all except Signal are lacking on this front. OSS developers are allergic to a smooth UX in general

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Signal’s UX is NOT good unless you want to expose your encrypted conversations to a smartphone (of which far from all can run a private OS). All because of no desktop registration. You either have to use inconvenient signal-cli, or an Android emulator which creates its own troubles.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Signals UX is no better than SMS apps. People I’ve tried to convert all say the same thing.

        ~~But it’s still the most secure/privacy minded messenger. ~~

    • 486@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Matrix also does have a pretty big problem with meta data. By default it stores a ton of meta data (at least the reference server implementation does) and I am not sure if this is even a solvable problem without redesigning the protocol. When opting for an alternative to Signal, XMPP is probably the better choice.