Also @shrugal@lemmy.world.
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.
No! I prefer ______, and you are WRONG for thinking otherwise!
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:
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.
Cause it’s one big part of why the Fediverse and Lemmy exist in the first place.
We wouldn’t need all this decentralization overhead if centralized sites were trustworthy and focussed on serving their users. The fact that they are not is what leads to privacy violations and enshittification, hence why people created the Fediverse and why we are here (at least most of us I presume).
pay for it with
advertisingyour 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.
Nope, not if you use the Beeper Bridge Manager. I’m running two bridges right now, without having my own Matrix server.
You only need to selfhost the bridge, it can use their Matrix server. Makes it much simpler.
Self hosting their bridges is really simple, if you have a device to run the Docker containers on. That way you don’t have to give them your logins, all they get to see are encrypted Matrix messages.
There always something missing, like
Every app is different, but I have yet to find one that ticks all the boxes.
Didn’t know about that one. I’ll check it out, thanks!
Edit: Windows/Browser only, no mobile app :/
Yup. It looks promising and I’ve tried it a few times, but it still has a long way to go before it can replace Notion for me. Also, self-hosting it is a complete mess right now, definitely not ready for everyday use.
Nothing about what you just wrote has anything to do with closed source software though. You could just as well say that closed source helps them predict the future or draw shinier unicorns. It doesn’t!
Maybe you mean tightly coupled, stripped-down, preconfigured or vertically integrated, but you can do that just as well with open source software. No one is forcing them to make a general purpose chat app or offer the ability to choose a different server. It’s just a matter of being able to see, verify and modify the code.
differentiate above the competition […] charging for it
This is the only thing that comes close imo. But they stated specifically that they don’t want to make money with the chat app itself, so it doesn’t really work as a justification. They could easily offer server-side premium features or create a closed source premium-only version or extension, it’s no reason to make the base app closed source.
security theatre
They don’t have to do that, and they don’t afaik. Matrix itself can do proper e2ee just fine, and Beeper is pretty open about the fact that bridges hosted by them have to break e2ee to translate between platforms. They’d only need theater if their closed source app actually has some bad code in it, which is kind of my point.
Expanding to selling some user metadata, or sniffing the bridges, would be an extra
Again: Their Matrix server and bridges are open source right now, and it wouldn’t stop them from doing what you’re describing.
Too pedantic 😉
I just can’t help it. 😜
It should probably be replaced with a more bespoke operator for that, like x isempty
or something.
Notion + OneNote/Samsung Notes
There is a myriad of open source notes apps, but none of them really hit the spot for me.
the connecting with a majority of people using the same closed source platform
The platform is open, including the part that connects to other closed source platforms. It’s just Matrix and open source bridges after all. And making the client app closed souce doesn’t help with any of that.
I’m sorry if I’m a bit pedantic about this, but it seems like you’re describing an upside to closed source software that’s just not there.
Welcome to the Linux community. :)
You will probably never understand everything about Linux and all of its included and associated systems. That’s completely fine, no one does! That’s why we are many, and it’s what asking for advice or help is for. You can just learn whatever interests you at your own pace, and know that there will always be interesting things you haven’t seen yet.