• Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can’t believe people are saying Telegram and Threema might be better than Signal. Signal isn’t perfect but Telegram and Threema are worse.

    • Autonomous User@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Because we keep saying Signal, Telegram, Threema instead of Anti-Libre Software, Service as a Software Substitute and Centralised.

    • boerbiet@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      It really depends on your use case. Most of my simple chat messages are the same as I would have in any public space. I have no need for encryption, I have need for convenience in that regard. With Telegram I have my chat history on all devices and don’t need to use my phone to connect which are two must-haves for me. For my use case, Signal is the worse option. That doesn’t make Signal bad, just not suitable for me.

      As a privacy-concious person I am very much aware of the non-secure nature of my chats, but since that is not a factor of consideration to me when it comes to casual chats with a few friends and family members. The worst thing Telegram could do is analyse my chats and … then what?

        • hruzgar@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago
          1. The Encryption algorithm of Signal is basically the same algorithms proposed by the US gov in 2000. There is no way they would release these encryption algorithms if they couldn’t break them themsleves
          2. If you would see which organisations are supporting Signal (look at where Signal gets all the money), you would also agree with me. There is no way these organasations are supporting them for your privacy. Why would they? The same people who are trying their best to get all your data. Believing this is just pure naivity imo but call me what you want
          • refalo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Please stop spreading FUD.

            1. The encryption used by Signal would not be used if it could be easily broken. It’s fully open source and is regularly audited. People would not recommend it if it were so broken like you say; this is just fearmongering.

            2. lol, lmao even

            • hruzgar@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m not forcing you to believe anything. Also this is a free platform where I can say what I think. I won’t hold myself back from expressing my view only because the majority has a different opinikn (looking at the downvotes). I personally just wouldn’t trust it. And it also doesn’t have any difference to Whatsapp and co. (encryprion algos are the same) which completely removes the purpose of it even existing (ik open source is still an argument. But they don’t have reproducable builds so even that falls apart) so there really isn’t any reason for me to switch to it or promote it to anybody at all.