Comment by tptacek
2 years ago
They're messengers. They have messenger features. The details of how those features are implemented is what matter. Last I checked, Telegram doesn't even have encrypted group messaging, and it has a serverside database of who's talking to who.
I don't know what "feature" you're talking about not existing until 2014, but before Open Whisper Systems, the thing we call Signal was "TextSecure", a literal SMS replacement.
>They're messengers. They have messenger features.
And some are better at being messengers than others.
This is true. At every point where Telegram and Signal had the choice between being a pleasant messenger experience or being secure and private, each made decisions consistent with all their previous decisions.
For some definition of secure and private.
Forcing you to use your phone number and then the same second you created your account go behind your back and spam everyone you just did so is neither private nor something many would associate with secure.
I guess something doesn't have to be secure if you can pretend it is public.
Of course Signal has carefully designed their goals to allow them to do that but in doing so that is a straight up asshole move in a context where they should be seeking trust?
Absolutely mind bending.
This is a great improvement, but they have already proven they can't be trusted with anyone's phone number so it is a damn shame they still won't allow you to create an account without one.
It is a decent service otherwise, but my fricking god I hope they at some point realize the harm they've done.
Up until today I've been ashamed of suggesting signal. Hopefully that will change with this feature.
6 replies →