Comment by godelski
2 years ago
I really like the idea of federation, but I haven't seen it be successful in practice. I can't think of a federated service that isn't also highly centralized. This was a big problem for cryptocurrencies and it's not like email isn't almost all Microsoft or Google. Mastodon has been struggling as well.
While I think there are better services to be private and secure from a technical perspective, there's one killer security and privacy feature that Signal has that on one else does: usability. It's pretty hard to get my grandma onto Matrix, but it isn't hard to get her on Signal. The truth of the matter is that you can't have private and secure conversations if there is no one on the other side. So while I really do like Matrix and the like, I think of them as more alpha or beta type projects. I don't find that the bashing of Signal is helpful (like we also do with Firefox) because all it does is creates noise for people that don't understand the bashing is coming over a nuanced and biased point of view (we're mostly highly tech literate here on HN, it is a bubble. But people still read our comments that aren't). End of the day, if we aren't getting 1 click server installs (or literally everyone is a host), federated systems are going to become highly centralized at some point. PGP's always failed because the easiest way to hack a PGP email was to reply that you couldn't decrypt. It wasn't appropriate for the masses even when it wasn't difficult to use. Don't get me wrong, I love Matrix, but it's got a long way to go to get mass adaptation.
Fwiw, I remember a user awhile back offering a bounty for a decentralized pathway in Signal[0]. The idea was to create an AirDrop like system to help with things like local file sharing but then extend the project forward to create a mesh network. Seems like a reasonable idea to me. I think it may be more advantageous to try to push Signal in the right direction than rebuild from scratch. I'd highly encourage people with other opinions to participate in the Signal community because it is a crazy echo chamber in there and for some reason the devs treat it as a strong signal.
There is still a huge difference between a totally centralized system and partially federated one.
An analogy is the U.S. is a two-party system, but most would consider this significantly different than the one-party system in North Korea or Russia.
A federated system with a few large players is still much better than a centralized one.
I agree with all this, but only to a certain extent. The big disadvantage of a centralized system is the ability to control an entire ecosystem. The same reason we dislike monopolies. It's because monopolies of any kind have the ability to abuse their power, though that doesn't mean they do. I mean browsers are "decentralized" and that doesn't stop Google from exerting significant control, especially considering most browsers are chromium (I find it weird people say to fight Chrome by switching to a different color of Chrome).
Like I said, I'm all for Signal becoming federated. It's why I dropped that link to the airdrop feature request. I'd also be in favor of people running their own servers. I mean the server code is available, you just can't connect it with the main network. So as far as I see it, there's nothing stopping this from happening. I see a lot of people complaining but I'm not aware of any major roadblocks. That doesn't mean there aren't any, but I'm just not aware of any. And fwiw, there are alternative Signal clients like Molly[0]. So at least the app can be disjoint from the official ecosystem.
[0] https://github.com/mollyim
Signal has said that they don't want a decentralized network until they have settled on their standard and implementation as they see decentralized federation as what has prevented email from modernizing . I'm assuming they will never get to the point where they feel Signal is stable enough to decentralize.
2 replies →