• 1 Post
  • 255 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 23rd, 2023

help-circle

  • 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 making good trade-offs. 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.










  • Can’t talk for the free tier, but my Usenet account comes bundled with a paid Privado account, and that’s working ok so far. The connections have been reliable, fast, and low latency.

    My main issue has been that it doesn’t support port forwarding. Also, some GeoIP services locate many of their servers in the Netherlands, instead of where Privado says they are. Idk who’s right, but it’s definitely a problem if you want to pick a specific location.


  • Why stop half way? All you need is a benevolent dictator, shouldn’t be too hard to find, right?

    Some of these points are good, some are just absurd. Letting “the state” handle everything and hold all the cards, and then actually believing that it won’t be coerced and corrupted or that there won’t be strong disagreements about how to handle things is just delusional and wishful thinking on a grand scale imo.

    I agree that most modern countries need to strenghen the public sector, but you still need checks and balances between powers, individual responsibilities and freedoms, real-world economic feedback and incentives, and so on.



  • It can be a bit annoying sometimes, but there are solutions for almost anything, like alternative clients and frontends. But 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 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 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: The paragraph actually argues about privacy again, trying to spin the existing transparency into a negative. I mean, I think it’s a valid option, but it’ not something “Bitcoiners” are wrong about.

    Regarding inclusion: This one talks about censorship-resistance instead. The fact is that Bitcoin transactions are inclusive, but ofc you can still get into trouble if you have to fear external repercussions and can’t stay anonymous.