On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 17:02:10 +0300 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sb, 26 iun 21, 14:05:04, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 26 Jun 2021 at 14:14:13 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > An interesting read. Countered at > > > > https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom > > Looking forward for them to prove Moxie wrong, really! I certainly have a much less profound understanding of the issues, both philosophical and technical, than the experts on both sides of this debate, but my sympathies lie strongly with the Matrix people. From their blog post (thanks, Brian) - I think this is worth posting here: > It’s true that if you’re writing a messaging app optimised for privacy > at any cost, Moxie’s approach is one way to do it. However, this ends > up being a perversely closed world - a closed network, where unofficial > clients are banned, with no platform to build on, no open standards, > and you end up thoroughly putting all your eggs in one basket, trusting > past, present & future Signal to retain its values, stay up and somehow > dodge compromise & censorship… despite probably being the single > highest value attack target on the ‘net. > > Quite simply, that isn’t a world I want to live in. > > We owe the entire success of the Internet (let alone the Web) to > openness, interoperability and decentralisation. To declare that > openness, interoperability and decentralisation is ‘too hard’ and not > worth the effort when building a messaging solution is to throw away > all the potential of the vibrancy, creativity and innovation that comes > from an open network. Sure, you may end up with a super-private > messaging app - but one that starts to smell alarmingly like a walled > garden like Facebook’s Internet.org initiative, or an AOL keyword, or > Google’s AMP. Celejar
