Telegram's getting ads(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Telegram's getting ads
https://gizmodo.com/oh-great-telegrams-getting-ads-1845940099
96 comments
What do you dislike about telegrams encryption? The only private messaging app Im really familiar with signal
The reason primarily is that they have rolled their own crypto, which based on a lot of reading and comments from other experts suggests is the wrong thing to do.
To this end I havent seen a good explanation from Telegram as to why they have taken this route given there are so many proven & battle tested methods and algorithms. "We havent been hacked yet" doesnt seem good enough for me.
1:1 messages aren't e2e by default and group messages dont support e2e.
For these reasons about encryption I dont like it but their UI/UX is the absolute best.
To this end I havent seen a good explanation from Telegram as to why they have taken this route given there are so many proven & battle tested methods and algorithms. "We havent been hacked yet" doesnt seem good enough for me.
1:1 messages aren't e2e by default and group messages dont support e2e.
For these reasons about encryption I dont like it but their UI/UX is the absolute best.
> To this end I havent seen a good explanation from Telegram as to why they have taken this route given ..
They say it is for speed. Looking at how fast Telegram is, I can say it worked for them. It is the most reliable app that works on slow internet for me.
https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-did-you-go-for-a-cus...
They say it is for speed. Looking at how fast Telegram is, I can say it worked for them. It is the most reliable app that works on slow internet for me.
https://core.telegram.org/techfaq#q-why-did-you-go-for-a-cus...
Their protocol is not encrypted by default, which is an odd choice. And on any smartphone made in the last 10 years encryption should not be a bottleneck in any other way than maybe compression size, which is pretty irrelevant since most of the larger things you are sending will be heavily compressed before encryption (video and images come to mind).
> Their protocol is not encrypted by default, which is an odd choice.
That's because end-to-end encrypted chats are only available on a single device, since the e2e keys are not shared between devices. Most users switch between devices and like to have everything stored in the cloud, so having that as the default is the obvious convenience.
Anybody who is concerned about e2e can easily start a secret chat for that purposes, at the expense of cloud functionality.
That's because end-to-end encrypted chats are only available on a single device, since the e2e keys are not shared between devices. Most users switch between devices and like to have everything stored in the cloud, so having that as the default is the obvious convenience.
Anybody who is concerned about e2e can easily start a secret chat for that purposes, at the expense of cloud functionality.
> And on any smartphone made in the last 10 years encryption should not be a bottleneck in any other way..
Telegram is the fastest messenger on my 3 year old phone and is significantly faster than the other 6 messengers on it (some of them are e2ee and some only TLS encrypted.
Telegram is the fastest messenger on my 3 year old phone and is significantly faster than the other 6 messengers on it (some of them are e2ee and some only TLS encrypted.
Which probably has nothing to do with encryption. The TLS messengers are using AES as well (and unless you are using secret chats for all your communication Telegram is in this camp as well).
What you are experiencing is probably "just" UI.
What you are experiencing is probably "just" UI.
Yes, but signal has another layer of encryption. Even if the server is compromised or TLS is broken, singal chats shouldn't leak.
> The reason primarily is that they have rolled their own crypto, which based on a lot of reading and comments from other experts suggests is the wrong thing to do
Someone has to roll crypto.
Did Signal roll their own?
Someone has to roll crypto.
Did Signal roll their own?
I believe Signal did create their own crypto (which is also used now by apps like WhatsApp). The difference is that Signal's crypto was created by a trained cryptographer and seems to be generally respected in the cryptography community while Telegrams is not.
It's not clear who made Telegram's crypto but it was probably Nikolai Durov who is a genius mathematician and engineer, so it's not like it's some guy in a garage.
I remember he was pretty cocky here on HN about it. Half a year later it was shown to be thoroughly broken because the server could provide shit entropy to the client which it for some godforsaken reason used to generate the encryption keys.
So, yes. He (or any of the other 6 world champion coders that were bragged about) designed a broken protocol. Broken, as in "trivial access to the plain text by the server", which is pretty damn awful.
When people say that telegram rolled their own crypto that mean that they chose weird crypto primitives, weird key handling and generation and combined them in a way that made people go "whoa! That looks weird" and defended it by refering to their own world championship victories, by extension saying that people were to stupid to understand.
And 6 months later their protocol was shown to be broken.
Use telegram all you like. Don't say that their encryption is even close to being the gold standard.
So, yes. He (or any of the other 6 world champion coders that were bragged about) designed a broken protocol. Broken, as in "trivial access to the plain text by the server", which is pretty damn awful.
When people say that telegram rolled their own crypto that mean that they chose weird crypto primitives, weird key handling and generation and combined them in a way that made people go "whoa! That looks weird" and defended it by refering to their own world championship victories, by extension saying that people were to stupid to understand.
And 6 months later their protocol was shown to be broken.
Use telegram all you like. Don't say that their encryption is even close to being the gold standard.
Signal's crypto has also been independently audited [0], with pretty encouraging results, and as it is open source, can continually be audited.
Telegram's on the other hand, can't be continually audited, but the MTProto scheme they put together has been found to have a number of flaws [1], and that hasn't changed. They also haven't really allowed third-party audit of their actual code, so there may or may not be extra bugs waiting to bite you.
[0] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf
[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
Telegram's on the other hand, can't be continually audited, but the MTProto scheme they put together has been found to have a number of flaws [1], and that hasn't changed. They also haven't really allowed third-party audit of their actual code, so there may or may not be extra bugs waiting to bite you.
[0] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf
[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
O thought a garage gives you street cred, now ot works against you?
Kids these days, can't keep up with fashion
Kids these days, can't keep up with fashion
It's not end to end. Getting data to a server encrypted is a solved problem. But if you're just going to store it there in plain text forever, what's the point?
Ads are never, ever reasonable. Never let other companies brain hack your users. It's unethical and an awful UX. No one is ever pleased to see an ad.
It's not like we can't do instant messaging without ads. I have used IRC every day for the past 15 years. Not every project needs a business model to work and not every approach is justified because the business needs it.
It's not like we can't do instant messaging without ads. I have used IRC every day for the past 15 years. Not every project needs a business model to work and not every approach is justified because the business needs it.
> No one is ever pleased to see an ad.
People watching the US Professional Football Championships primarily to see the ads and watching movie trailers voluntarily (which are ads) seem to disprove your suggestion.
Messaging has costs, especially if it includes proxying media, or verifying control of phone numbers. If the costs aren't too big, it's find not to have a business model, but if the costs are large, a business model enables longevity.
People watching the US Professional Football Championships primarily to see the ads and watching movie trailers voluntarily (which are ads) seem to disprove your suggestion.
Messaging has costs, especially if it includes proxying media, or verifying control of phone numbers. If the costs aren't too big, it's find not to have a business model, but if the costs are large, a business model enables longevity.
Watching film trailers is like watching possibly sponsored product 'reviews' or 'unboxings'. Sure, it's an advertisement for the product, but it's a deliberate choice to see its sales pitch, to see if you're interested.
That's different to me than unsolicited advertising.
That's different to me than unsolicited advertising.
I’m pleased to see ads that show me well designed products that solve problems I’ve been experiencing, especially if I don’t know I’ve been experiencing them.
For instance, Instagram’s targeting has realized that I like outdoorsy products, and even though I don’t buy the products, sometimes they inspire me to find a way to recreate the item myself.
In my opinion your POV is very dismissive of all the good work product design foundries the world over have been doing.
For instance, Instagram’s targeting has realized that I like outdoorsy products, and even though I don’t buy the products, sometimes they inspire me to find a way to recreate the item myself.
In my opinion your POV is very dismissive of all the good work product design foundries the world over have been doing.
You could just look up "outdoorsy" products. Why should everyone else have to suffer through ads and give up privacy just because a handful of people like them?
The whole advertising industry is now predicated on gaming people's attention, wants, and financial vulnerabilities. I also don't see how not wanting to see ads is dismissive of product design foundries. Just because you've designed a good product does not mean you're entitled to my attention or my time.
The whole advertising industry is now predicated on gaming people's attention, wants, and financial vulnerabilities. I also don't see how not wanting to see ads is dismissive of product design foundries. Just because you've designed a good product does not mean you're entitled to my attention or my time.
You don’t have to suffer though them! All you have to do is not use the app or provide the developer some other means of compensation. Why should all users have to pay out their cold hard cash to use a service just because a handful of people don’t like ads?
And the whole point is they show me things I don’t know I wanted, so a search doesn’t solve the problem — I’d only search if I knew I wanted something.
And the whole point is they show me things I don’t know I wanted, so a search doesn’t solve the problem — I’d only search if I knew I wanted something.
What is your point? Users are offered a free and paid version.
Someone will always have to foot the bill, and telegram has been doing so for free for the last 8 years.
Someone will always have to foot the bill, and telegram has been doing so for free for the last 8 years.
As someone who knew Durov personally, I'd say that it's very unlikely that the UX will be ruined by ads, and even more unlikely that users will be manipulated and/or tracked in any way. If there's one thing he does well it's respecting his users. He knows what "we're earning enough to cover our expenses" means. The company is privately owned so no one will be pushing him into anything either.
Many popular Telegram channels already have ads in them, posted by their creators. My understanding is that Telegram will be taking control of this by acting as an intermediary, taking a cut and possibly deciding what goes through. Thinking of it, it makes sense, and doesn't alter the UX at all for the average user.
Many popular Telegram channels already have ads in them, posted by their creators. My understanding is that Telegram will be taking control of this by acting as an intermediary, taking a cut and possibly deciding what goes through. Thinking of it, it makes sense, and doesn't alter the UX at all for the average user.
Come on, ALL UX is ruined by addition of ads. I bet there is not a single user of any app anywhere ever that can claim that their UX was bettered by ads. Also, users WILL be have to manipulated and/or tracked for the purpose of monetization via ads. By now everyone is well acquainted with these monetization techniques, so no point in pretending otherwise.
Disagree. I like musical instruments. I don’t mind ads for guitar companies. I like embedded systems. I love seeing ads for new esp32 variants or low cost e-ink screens. Also I never object to women’s swimsuit ads. Just sayin’.
Still, ads will distract you in moments that you don't want to be distracted.
If you like guitars, you can visit a good, large online guitar store, say once a week, and you will always be up to date. Same for swimsuits.
If you like guitars, you can visit a good, large online guitar store, say once a week, and you will always be up to date. Same for swimsuits.
The service must be sustained somehow. Either through ads or fees.
I don't understand why people act like they can avoid ads, and enjoy a free service.
Hopefully there is a paid option that hides ads. Would you pay for it?
I don't understand why people act like they can avoid ads, and enjoy a free service.
Hopefully there is a paid option that hides ads. Would you pay for it?
Thanks for telling me how my attention span works. Your insights are lacking but at least you make up for it by being condescending.
It's a trap. "Enough to cover our expenses" means the ad rates have to be high enough and for them to be high enough the advertisers have to get good performance. We'll see how well this comment ages.
>>As someone who knew Durov personally, I'd say that it's very unlikely that the UX will be ruined by ads
The Google founders were pretty idealistic when they started too and no doubt many swore by their intentions.
The Google founders were pretty idealistic when they started too and no doubt many swore by their intentions.
Google has investors though. Telegram is wholly owned by Durov.
I've also seen him run monetization at VK. Basically: there was one developer responsible for ads, and he sat in another office together with financial staff because of the different values.
I've also seen him run monetization at VK. Basically: there was one developer responsible for ads, and he sat in another office together with financial staff because of the different values.
> I'd say that it's very unlikely that the UX will be ruined by ads [...]. If there's one thing he does well it's respecting his users.
If there's one thing Telegram isn't good at, it's having a UX that respect its users. If that was the case, it would be possible to opt out of notifications from group chats and still receive notifications for private chats, but it's not. This forces one to juggle with multiple accounts if they want to both join public groups and also use it for regular chats.
They already put engagement over respect for their users, I don't have much confidence they won't ruin it even more with ads.
If there's one thing Telegram isn't good at, it's having a UX that respect its users. If that was the case, it would be possible to opt out of notifications from group chats and still receive notifications for private chats, but it's not. This forces one to juggle with multiple accounts if they want to both join public groups and also use it for regular chats.
They already put engagement over respect for their users, I don't have much confidence they won't ruin it even more with ads.
> If that was the case, it would be possible to opt out of notifications from group chats and still receive notifications for private chats, but it's not.
Uh, it's possible, and has always been? In the Android client at least, there's a group of big honking toggles under "notifications and sounds" that do just that.
Uh, it's possible, and has always been? In the Android client at least, there's a group of big honking toggles under "notifications and sounds" that do just that.
Huh? I can mute groups very easily, and it has been possible for almost as long as they existed AFAIK.
TG has in my opinion the best UI and functionality of all chat-apps available too.
TG has in my opinion the best UI and functionality of all chat-apps available too.
On Android, each chat creates a different notification group that you can customize through the system settings.
On iOS's half baked implementation of notifications, not sure.
On iOS's half baked implementation of notifications, not sure.
I don't understand how Telegram has managed to stay free for 8 (?) years until now. Was there ever a catch? Since the start it has continuously improved to become a feature-packed product that's easy to use, with a pleasant UI.
The most interesting thing about Telegram to me is the development team: about 10 very good engineers who travel with Pavel and work from hotels.
The founder had been covering the costs
Yep. Summarized, the founder found the Russian equivalent of Facebook, sold it, and started + sustained Telegram with the proceeds.
Which shows the extent to which the mainstream internet is overrun with greed
I mean... He tried to make a bazillion dollars with gram crypto currency, but it failed.
I'd recommend Signal[0] as an alternative. It's fully Open-Source (including the backend) and their crypto is public and independently verified[1][2][3]...
[0] https://signal.org/en/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Encryption_p...
[2] https://threatpost.com/signal-audit-reveals-protocol-cryptog...
[3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf [PDF]
[0] https://signal.org/en/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Encryption_p...
[2] https://threatpost.com/signal-audit-reveals-protocol-cryptog...
[3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf [PDF]
Signal is great and I believe it does have better crypto. But the UI is severely lacking along with feature set.
Telegram feels like it's adding something new every few months, though the documentation over the features is poor since it's mostly through announcements. It's also a lot more customizable. I ultimately settled on Telegram because it was a good balance of feature-rich and crypto (when you use it)
That being said, it was hard enough to get a small group of friends to transition to Telegram. Signal would be much harder due to not having so many niceties.
I wish both to continue competing against each other, though. It's great to have choices that aren't owned by the big corporations.
Telegram feels like it's adding something new every few months, though the documentation over the features is poor since it's mostly through announcements. It's also a lot more customizable. I ultimately settled on Telegram because it was a good balance of feature-rich and crypto (when you use it)
That being said, it was hard enough to get a small group of friends to transition to Telegram. Signal would be much harder due to not having so many niceties.
I wish both to continue competing against each other, though. It's great to have choices that aren't owned by the big corporations.
One thing that's frustrating re: Signal is the client being a bloated entity (on desktop). In comparison, Telegram runs laps around it, and is a true native experience in many cases. It's a joy to use, whereas Signal - while amazing, and probably better in terms of privacy aspects - feels foreign and unwelcome.
I never found signal lacking in any way, except that occasionally push notifications don’t get through. When people say signal is lacking in features, what do they mean? Simplicity is appealing too
They (at least it's me) are possibly meaning the excellent multi-device use. I can easilly use Telegram on like 10 different devices, all chats are in sync.
This also means that it's much easier to spy on someone on Telegram: just create a fake device with telegram, then login the user into it using a phone with fake identity. Easy-peasy for a (Russian) government.
I am not sure what do you mean by spying. How does "create a fake device with telegram" work?
It seems hard to add a rogue device to an existing user's account without them knowing. The 5-digit login code is sent by SMS only when there is no other devices logged into Telegram in the account. In all other cases the user will be notified by seeing the confirmation code message on their Telegram app.
One can add a password as an authentication factor for their Telegram account also. Just in case the login code is intercepted.
It seems hard to add a rogue device to an existing user's account without them knowing. The 5-digit login code is sent by SMS only when there is no other devices logged into Telegram in the account. In all other cases the user will be notified by seeing the confirmation code message on their Telegram app.
One can add a password as an authentication factor for their Telegram account also. Just in case the login code is intercepted.
Any time someone logs into your account you immediately get a notification on all devices with the IP address the attempt originated from.
Yeah, e2ee importance for chat is grossly overrepresented. Vast majority of users would happily trade security and privacy for convenience.
I agree, the UI is very lacking and the UX could be better but there are VERY frequent updates and new features seem to be added regularly...
Does signal still have a problem of dropping messages? I tried to use it as a replacement for Android Messages a while ago but roughly 10-25% of all messages were not received any given day.
I experience this quite a lot, at least in group chats (I mainly use Signal for group chats). Some of the participants receive my message, others not. When I check the message details it says "message not sent" or "not delivered" (not sure which one) for some group members while it does not display any errors other members.
As far as i noticed, no error means the message was delivered but even when it showed an error it could be that people actually got my message.
This error seems to happen a lot more often, when i send messages via Signal Desktop.
This error seems to happen a lot more often, when i send messages via Signal Desktop.
Yes, it does. At least for me.
Until they drop real phone number requirement signal cannot be considered secure.
No. The maintainer of software prohibits alternative clients. It's open source in name only. And when he decides to add ads to Signal, you can't avoid them.
https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
Ah yes the average user care about privacy and encryption. UX is for us nerds.
This is why decentralization is the future. Any sufficiently popular walled garden will have such problem (I'm looking at you Signal).
Consider using Matrix instead.
Consider using Matrix instead.
Someone, somewhere, still has to pay for your Matrix instance. Please consider chipping in a few dollars to whoever hosts it, both for their direct costs and their time.
I like Matrix, but when it comes to ease of use and onboarding Signal is easier for the general audience.
Is this a counter-argument, or plain pontification? OP clearly states that there is a fundamental issue with any centralized solution (i.e, the moment that it becomes too big, it will succumb to the interests of its owners) and you respond by saying "well, Signal is easier for the general audience"?
It might be easier, so what? Apple's products are supposedly more privacy-oriented than the Facebook's/Google's. So what? The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden.
If you want to argue for Matrix vs XMPP, or XMPP vs SIP or any other decentralized protocol, by all means go ahead. Just please don't come with "I like Matrix, but here is a completely lazy cop-out that I will use to justify to not fight the good fight"
It might be easier, so what? Apple's products are supposedly more privacy-oriented than the Facebook's/Google's. So what? The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden.
If you want to argue for Matrix vs XMPP, or XMPP vs SIP or any other decentralized protocol, by all means go ahead. Just please don't come with "I like Matrix, but here is a completely lazy cop-out that I will use to justify to not fight the good fight"
Its not a lazy cop out. There is a reason why Telegram, WhatsApp, iMessage have more users - they are simple to use for an audience that is not tech savvy.
Matrix has a long way to go before getting people to join is "easy". Theyve done great work over this year to get that done, but its far from perfect.
Fight the good fight but dont forget what makes an app attract users. Even now on matrix, when you sign up, matrix.org is the default server. If majority go about signing up without changing that, you end up with a centralized service.
Matrix has a long way to go before getting people to join is "easy". Theyve done great work over this year to get that done, but its far from perfect.
Fight the good fight but dont forget what makes an app attract users. Even now on matrix, when you sign up, matrix.org is the default server. If majority go about signing up without changing that, you end up with a centralized service.
I've got a good part of my family who is not tech savvy on matrix (not their server, but actual accounts on communick.com homeserver), nothing that a 10 minute walk-through didn't solve.
It on us the tech savvy to identify these issues, educate and help them overcome them, and ideally contribute for these issues to be solved in the first place. This gives us progress and freedom. Saying "matrix is hard/incomplete, let's just stick in the golden cage" gives us convenience, but no progress.
It on us the tech savvy to identify these issues, educate and help them overcome them, and ideally contribute for these issues to be solved in the first place. This gives us progress and freedom. Saying "matrix is hard/incomplete, let's just stick in the golden cage" gives us convenience, but no progress.
10 min walkthrough/registration process versus a <1 min registration. Think whatever of it but people appreciate convenience over everything.
"Look, mom/dad/wife/brother/friends, I know that WhatsApp is easier and everyone else is using it and it you already know it and it is super convenient. But I don't want to use it anymore for a bunch of different reasons. If you want to talk to me, I can help you get set up on this app and we can talk. I know it sounds like a pain in the ass, but I am willing to help you with whatever issue you have. Just please don't ask me to sacrifice my freedom for your convenience."
100% conversion rate. Stop with excuses and Just. Ask. Them. In fact even if I have no paying customers at all for communick I wouldn't still shut it down just so my friends and family can continue using it.
100% conversion rate. Stop with excuses and Just. Ask. Them. In fact even if I have no paying customers at all for communick I wouldn't still shut it down just so my friends and family can continue using it.
100% conversion rate with those you can apply sufficient pressure on, perhaps. Who'd want to lose contact with a son, brother, father over something like that? But it's a hassle, even if you don't see it that way.
Over the years I myself have been converted to Signal, Telegram (encrypted chats), Threema, some kind of encrypted IRC and OTR on at least two other messengers, Google Wave, Google Talk, Viber, ... can't remember them all. I have no idea anymore what person prefers which app and since most of those people weren't the very best of friends, contact to almost all of them has effectively ceased (in part because those specific people don't often start conversations themselves), which is a pity, but it's simply really bothersome to cater to everyone's preferences, and I absolutely can't and won't switch to $other_app fully myself, because I really value being able to talk to all my acquaintances and friends and relatives and being able to stay in touch with new ones easily and frictionlessly, and pretty much everyone is on Whatsapp, and all I need is a phone number.
If some people categorically don't value other people who don't use their preferred app, that totally weirds me out. Their choice, but not one I'm willing to make, especially since that notion of freedom I gain feels like a very, very abstract kind of freedom in a world where billions use Whatsapp for next to anything and all sorts of devices, apps and websites from all sorts of brands and sources phone home lots and lots of data, which also means eschewing Whatsapp doesn't matter a thing unless I make dozens of other painfull choices like opting out of all mainstream social media, complex privacy-centric browser setups that need constant attention to not fall behind, no mainstream phone (possibly no smartphone at all), no smart devices at all, Linux exclusively, etc. pp., otherwise I'll just leak data like a sieve elsewhere. Given that I gain what feels like very little, life just feels too short for this.
Over the years I myself have been converted to Signal, Telegram (encrypted chats), Threema, some kind of encrypted IRC and OTR on at least two other messengers, Google Wave, Google Talk, Viber, ... can't remember them all. I have no idea anymore what person prefers which app and since most of those people weren't the very best of friends, contact to almost all of them has effectively ceased (in part because those specific people don't often start conversations themselves), which is a pity, but it's simply really bothersome to cater to everyone's preferences, and I absolutely can't and won't switch to $other_app fully myself, because I really value being able to talk to all my acquaintances and friends and relatives and being able to stay in touch with new ones easily and frictionlessly, and pretty much everyone is on Whatsapp, and all I need is a phone number.
If some people categorically don't value other people who don't use their preferred app, that totally weirds me out. Their choice, but not one I'm willing to make, especially since that notion of freedom I gain feels like a very, very abstract kind of freedom in a world where billions use Whatsapp for next to anything and all sorts of devices, apps and websites from all sorts of brands and sources phone home lots and lots of data, which also means eschewing Whatsapp doesn't matter a thing unless I make dozens of other painfull choices like opting out of all mainstream social media, complex privacy-centric browser setups that need constant attention to not fall behind, no mainstream phone (possibly no smartphone at all), no smart devices at all, Linux exclusively, etc. pp., otherwise I'll just leak data like a sieve elsewhere. Given that I gain what feels like very little, life just feels too short for this.
Of course it is a hassle! I never claimed otherwise. But it is a hassle worth fighting for and this is what I try to show when I am helping them getting started with something else.
> If some people categorically don't value other people who don't use their preferred app, that totally weirds me out.
Who said anything about judging/not valuing other people by their preferred app? I am not claiming exclusivity. I still have WhatsApp on my phone for contacts and groups who are not close enough to me for me to ask them to use a different app.
The point I am trying to make is that if everyone (including privacy-sensitive, tech-savvy people) keep this apathy in regards to their digital hygiene, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and there is no way we will ever get out of this mess. I presume anyone on Hacker News can and know how to do better, and we should be the ones in the front lines fighting for more open systems instead of passively waiting for some magical benevolent entity to save us from Big Tech.
> If some people categorically don't value other people who don't use their preferred app, that totally weirds me out.
Who said anything about judging/not valuing other people by their preferred app? I am not claiming exclusivity. I still have WhatsApp on my phone for contacts and groups who are not close enough to me for me to ask them to use a different app.
The point I am trying to make is that if everyone (including privacy-sensitive, tech-savvy people) keep this apathy in regards to their digital hygiene, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and there is no way we will ever get out of this mess. I presume anyone on Hacker News can and know how to do better, and we should be the ones in the front lines fighting for more open systems instead of passively waiting for some magical benevolent entity to save us from Big Tech.
>It on us the tech savvy to identify these issues, educate and help them overcome them, and ideally contribute for these issues to be solved in the first place.
No, it’s on IM app developers. And not ideally, but today. Nobody is buying into tomorrow’s promises, the quicker signal/matrix will understand it, the better for everyone. Tell them.
No, it’s on IM app developers. And not ideally, but today. Nobody is buying into tomorrow’s promises, the quicker signal/matrix will understand it, the better for everyone. Tell them.
I think you are arguing with a strawman. Signal is as centralized as Telegram and moxie has already stated that he does not care about open or federated systems because of the usability trade-off required.
My argument is that the inferior usability is not an intrinsic issue of federated systems, just circunstancial. Being closed/centralized on the other hand, is an intrinsic property of all major platforms, and any of these major platforms will screw its users whenever they have enough lock-in.
So, I am not saying simply that open is good and closed is bad. What I am saying is that open should be preferred and promoted.
And no, people working on open systems should not just sit on their asses and say "you have no other choice, so you will have to take whatever we do". People working on Matrix already have quite a lot of work cut out for them and I am painfully aware of the points were it can improve. The thing is I am also aware of how much improvement has happened already, while there is absolutely zero proprietary platform that opened up itself for public benefit.
My argument is that the inferior usability is not an intrinsic issue of federated systems, just circunstancial. Being closed/centralized on the other hand, is an intrinsic property of all major platforms, and any of these major platforms will screw its users whenever they have enough lock-in.
So, I am not saying simply that open is good and closed is bad. What I am saying is that open should be preferred and promoted.
And no, people working on open systems should not just sit on their asses and say "you have no other choice, so you will have to take whatever we do". People working on Matrix already have quite a lot of work cut out for them and I am painfully aware of the points were it can improve. The thing is I am also aware of how much improvement has happened already, while there is absolutely zero proprietary platform that opened up itself for public benefit.
>open should be preferred and promoted
And I’m saying that preference is a function of many parameters, and you can’t change preferences by just promoting a new parameter to the public. They’ll still have other important (to them) unrelated concerns with more weight. What we think it should or should not be is effectively irrelevant to their minds. To catch them, open IMs should have their whistles on top of regular bells, not instead. This looks like a strawman because it addresses (I believe) a wrong premise.
And I’m saying that preference is a function of many parameters, and you can’t change preferences by just promoting a new parameter to the public. They’ll still have other important (to them) unrelated concerns with more weight. What we think it should or should not be is effectively irrelevant to their minds. To catch them, open IMs should have their whistles on top of regular bells, not instead. This looks like a strawman because it addresses (I believe) a wrong premise.
> you can’t change preferences
Who said anything about changing preferences? When I said about converting those close to me, I mean in the sense that I get them to install and use Matrix for communicating with me. If they want to use/prefer close platforms to talk with other people, I am not stopping them/thinking less of them for it.
> They’ll still have other important (to them) unrelated concerns with more weight.
Yes, it's obvious. If they had prioritized openness and privacy over other bells and whistles they would been using already something like Matrix or XMPP. What I am saying since my very first comment is that I acknowledge that, but I also say that I prefer to use open tools and that I am willing to help them as much as possible to setup an account for them, install the apps and give basic guidance so that we can talk.
I am not asking them to drop other applications nor refusing to understand the reasons they have to prefer to use closed platforms. At no point I am challenging their preferences. I am just stating mine and supporting them for the hassle that I know that I am causing.
> To catch them, open IMs should have their whistles on top of regular bells, not instead.
It's not an exclusive thing. I don't have to change them all of their existing tools in order to get them to talk with me. I hope that one day the open applications will be so much easier to more people will actively look to make the switch, but I am willing to invest time and effort to keep as much as I can from my communications on open platforms and that has already been enough to get a good number of close people to become continued users.
Who said anything about changing preferences? When I said about converting those close to me, I mean in the sense that I get them to install and use Matrix for communicating with me. If they want to use/prefer close platforms to talk with other people, I am not stopping them/thinking less of them for it.
> They’ll still have other important (to them) unrelated concerns with more weight.
Yes, it's obvious. If they had prioritized openness and privacy over other bells and whistles they would been using already something like Matrix or XMPP. What I am saying since my very first comment is that I acknowledge that, but I also say that I prefer to use open tools and that I am willing to help them as much as possible to setup an account for them, install the apps and give basic guidance so that we can talk.
I am not asking them to drop other applications nor refusing to understand the reasons they have to prefer to use closed platforms. At no point I am challenging their preferences. I am just stating mine and supporting them for the hassle that I know that I am causing.
> To catch them, open IMs should have their whistles on top of regular bells, not instead.
It's not an exclusive thing. I don't have to change them all of their existing tools in order to get them to talk with me. I hope that one day the open applications will be so much easier to more people will actively look to make the switch, but I am willing to invest time and effort to keep as much as I can from my communications on open platforms and that has already been enough to get a good number of close people to become continued users.
>It might be easier, so what?
If it is not easier/equal they won’t give it a go. Just that.
>The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden.
Words of a freedom and privacy specialist. General folks are not specializing in it, more than a half (if only) cannot even connect it with their benefit. You say that like some economist could say “use less gas to keep prices down and nature alive”. But it doesn’t work, because “screw that nonsense, I have to drive my kids and groceries home”. If you’re in a quarantined country right now, just look around and see how many efforts the inconvenience requires to be sustained. This is the amount of force you have to apply, when doing it your “so what” way. Make IM app easy, friendly and full of features and cat pics and only then care for high matters. Literally all Real Security First apps are barely usable by a regular person in terms of everything.
If it is not easier/equal they won’t give it a go. Just that.
>The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden.
Words of a freedom and privacy specialist. General folks are not specializing in it, more than a half (if only) cannot even connect it with their benefit. You say that like some economist could say “use less gas to keep prices down and nature alive”. But it doesn’t work, because “screw that nonsense, I have to drive my kids and groceries home”. If you’re in a quarantined country right now, just look around and see how many efforts the inconvenience requires to be sustained. This is the amount of force you have to apply, when doing it your “so what” way. Make IM app easy, friendly and full of features and cat pics and only then care for high matters. Literally all Real Security First apps are barely usable by a regular person in terms of everything.
Is matrix as private as signal? How do you go about finding a good server? How do you know if you picked a good one? Which app do you use? Matrix would be more popular if the getting started flow was more clear on these sorts of questions. The decentralization is a major benefit, but some sort of “pick these if you don’t know what’s going on” flow would get peoples foot in the door; then a user could change things up later when they got their footing (add a pop up every 6 months reminding users that they can use different apps or servers, etc)
If ease of use and onboarding is the criterium, WhatsApp wins. Promoting any walled garden is short-sighted.
Arguably providing everyone the means to pay for what individuals need to live a healthy, thriving life, is what's necessary - so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. The ad industrial complex was a way to fast track processes, however it doesn't account for the externalized costs of manipulative advertising on society - lower quality, addictive products-services having a higher profit margin and therefore a higher budget for marketing/advertising as part of sustaining the complex. Decentralization therefore isn't a necessity except as a failsafe against potential bad actors, however data and network portability is necessary law/policy to be in place to counter actions of bad actors who use this current lack of easy mobility as a network defense mechanism.
so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs.
I don't think that once you pay for a service, ads and selling user data simply go away. In general, companies don't exist to just cover their costs, they exist to make as much money as they can. If they can make money by showing you ads or sell your data, they will.
I don't think that once you pay for a service, ads and selling user data simply go away. In general, companies don't exist to just cover their costs, they exist to make as much money as they can. If they can make money by showing you ads or sell your data, they will.
Yes, but if you're providing people enough to at least cover the costs of necessary services (perhaps even providing 10%+ above costs to allow budget for R&D or profit) then a competitor will come along who's against ads (for reasons: interruptive/intrusive, manipulative, etc) then there at least is a choice now possible - the ability to compete with ad-only funded options. Some people, maybe the majority of people, will be fine with using ad-only supported systems - exchanging their time, attention, and being manipulated - so then they have more of their UBI to spend elsewhere. The important point is the fluidity it allows within the system, to allow competitors to exist who don't need to depend on ads; and then you'll have the whole ad industrial complex + every other company that depends on influencing/manipulating people with ads to sustain their sales trying to counter how much UBI get so these systems can't be maintained without ads, keeping non-manipulative competition down at a disadvantage and unable to compete adequately.
Why did the article have to start with saying Telegram was for drug dealers?
If you don't like this post, here's the first one with original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569
Not defending Telegram, but I stopped reading after this part: "and longtime drug-dealer haven".
The first HN post with the original source:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569
This sounds like a hit piece, ordered by competitors.
"longtime drug-dealer haven"- most of my work colleagues use telegram, and I see friends from my contact list joining Telegram from all over the world. I started using it when Putin exiled the founder from Russia, and tried to ban its IP space for refusal to hand over the private keys to FSB. He never had any issues with WhatApp by the way. And I am an engineer, not a drug dealer. Private and group conversations (things that compete with WhatsApp) aren't getting ads.
Someone at gizmondo don't like Telegram,the Durov original message says the oposite:
> 5. All parts of Telegram devoted to messaging will remain ad-free. We think that displaying ads in private 1-to-1 chats or group chats is a bad idea. Communication between people should be free of advertising of any sort.
Original Source: https://t.me/durov/142
> 5. All parts of Telegram devoted to messaging will remain ad-free. We think that displaying ads in private 1-to-1 chats or group chats is a bad idea. Communication between people should be free of advertising of any sort.
Original Source: https://t.me/durov/142
From the founder's statement about making telegram sustainable:
> We are not going to sell the company like the founders of Whatsapp. The world needs Telegram to stay independent as a place where users are respected and high-quality service is ensured.
They're on the wrong track. Ads do not make a company independent. They make them dependent on those advertisers. If you're still using Telegram, it's long past time to move on to Signal.
> We are not going to sell the company like the founders of Whatsapp. The world needs Telegram to stay independent as a place where users are respected and high-quality service is ensured.
They're on the wrong track. Ads do not make a company independent. They make them dependent on those advertisers. If you're still using Telegram, it's long past time to move on to Signal.
After TON failed [0] I don't see many other avenues for breaking even with 500 million monthly active users. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23156224 [1] https://t.me/durov/142
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23156224 [1] https://t.me/durov/142
[deleted]
if you go to the founders post https://t.me/durov/142
It clearly says ads will be for the 1:many public community channels and not the private 1:1 and group chats. Other ways of funding will be premium services for businesses and premium stickers.
Sounds reasonable to me