Comment by chc4
10 hours ago
I saw a Mastodon tweet a while ago, which went something like:
Do tech companies understand consent?:
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] Ask me again in a few days
10 hours ago
I saw a Mastodon tweet a while ago, which went something like:
Do tech companies understand consent?:
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] Ask me again in a few days
Hey, that sounds like Signal!
https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/4590
>We're not going to remove the reminders.
>If you don't want to provide that access, you still don't need to – you can simply tap remind me later once a month
(See also: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/4373, https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/5809, ...)
I get their point that you can't provide a "No" in the reminder. But there should be an option (maybe even hidden under "advanced settings - here be dragons!") for this.
Molly, the Signal fork, has exactly this feature. https://molly.im/
Signal is an interesting case study in UX failure. I and a bunch of other tech forward people were on it in its heyday but after they removed SMS support and implemented shitty UX like that nag dialog: Neither I nor a single person I know uses it any more. Everyone is on Whatsapp or iMessage.
It may be cryptographically superior, but does that matter at the end of the day if nobody uses it?
Cryptographical superiority aside, Signal doesn't collect personal data, unlike Whatsapp. For me that's the main reason to use it. The UX is good enough, although some points can for sure be improved.
2 replies →
Sounds like they just don't care about privacy, do they? Guess showing them https://i.redd.it/0imry50rxy961.png still won't change anything..
1 reply →
WhatsApp isn't any better, it's just more popular.
> It may be cryptographically superior, but does that matter at the end of the day if nobody uses it?
I've made a few attempts to convert people, but no-go. People stay on Telegram and WhatsApp because they have better UX and features.
Signal refuses to see the value in good attractive UX.
This. We must change laws that the above field is not considered as given consent. And while we are at it, we must change "silence is agreement" to "silence is disagreement". This applies to change of ToS, price increases etc. That means if I don't click a link with a button "I agree", the ToS change is not accepted - that means they have to cancel/delete my account.
Didn't FCC remove "1-click unsubscribe" requirement since it can "provide more choice and lower prices to all users across the board" (since the companies can rip off more users and create pseudo-lower prices)?
EU has its GPDR and it has some teeth, but US is currently hopeless on that front, for now, from my vantage point.
I'd love to be stand corrected though.
The FTC established a "click-to-cancel" rule, but (as with just so many regulations in the US) it was blocked by an appeals court. Federal law says there's a hoop they have to jump through for rules with an impact of more than $100 million, and they didn't jump through the hoop because they didn't think the impact was that high.
Just move to Germany, we have all you asked for.
> And while we are at it, we must change "silence is agreement" to "silence is disagreement".
Maybe we should reframe their "silence is agreement" message as "silence is consent".
They ran out of letter "o" supply, so they can't spell "no".