We build Signal in the open, with publicly available source code for our applications and servers. To keep Signal a free global communication service without spam, we must depart from our totally-open posture and develop one piece of the server in private: a system for detecting and disrupting spam campaigns. Unlike encryption protocols, which are designed to be provably secure even if everyone knows how they work, spam detection is an ongoing chore for which there is no concrete resolution and for which transparency is a major disadvantage.
I did read part of your post and to be honest I don’t think there is even reason to read the rest. Basically you are saying that no contact informations indicate that someone likes to harass people and less repositories on Git means that someone has no knowledge. Some people just don’t want to be contacted outside that one platform where they are talking to you and number of repisitories doesn’t mean that your statements are taken more seriously.
No, as you can see this is my style of replying to any longer statement to avoid confusion about which part I’m replying to. You are pretending to be such an expert in every area yet you are spreading complete misinformation but reading reply from top to bottom shouldn’t be an issue for you.
Can you prove that code that is running on Signal servers is exactly the same code that is published? No, you can’t. Of course, if Signal would add some modifications that wouldn’t be compatible with current client but published source code of the server wouldn’t get updated then you could actually tell that something is wrong but my point is that they could do modifications that are compatible with the client and at the same time harmful to the users and in that case you wouldn’t be able to tell any difference.
I’m pretth sure some modifications doesn’t need users to update the client.
But in case of Signal you are not running your own server so you are not able to verify what is running there.
By disrespecting me, you are not making me take you more seriously but from your blog post I see that you are just behaving that way daily until someone agrees with your every word.
Project is not dead if there are still users using it.
Going by that logic you wouldn’t use anything because there is always some alternative. Why are you on Lemmy when Postmill is alternative? Why would you use Postmill if Lemmy is an alternative? People are using whatever fits their threat model and this is the part that you refuse to understand for some unknown reason.
After days, you still do not let it go, quote everything to make a clusterf. out of it as I or others are not capable of understanding what you say. Do you quote the previous sentence in real life and then answer his question, no because it makes things worse.
Yes there is always another alternative and there always will be, this is a good thing and not a bad. You ditch stuff the moment it is dead and move on, that is how the internet works. Otherwise, use existing alternative that exist since years, it is called XMPP. I am also btw. on Postmill and some other platforms. I am just not as active over there as I am on e.g. Reddit, Lemmy etc. But you compare now platforms in general to messenger apps who are mostly designed to deliver private stuff while as public forums are not private at all because everyone can read your stuff, so the attempt to make your point failed here. If I hear stuff like threat model, really … cringe man… The normal user gives a shit about wasting his time reviewing some security models.
You contradict yourself a lot btw on one side you say decentralized is what people use yet you argue with me about that signal is okay to use, it is not.
I assume you do not use Signal here and defend a product which is from community standpoint dead.
Now let it go and stop quoting every line it makes things worse, third time I say this…