6 ms·

We've had a lot of open systems and protocols, SIP, XMPP, Matrix, desktop Linux, Mastodon. It only gains adoption from the technologically savvy and fails to ca

by tapoxi 1mo ago

We've had a lot of open systems and protocols, SIP, XMPP, Matrix, desktop Linux, Mastodon. It only gains adoption from the technologically savvy and fails to capture a regular user base. My mother, a 70 year old retired special education teacher, got me and my extended family (21 people) on Signal. I didn't tell her about it, I didn't encourage her to use it, I didn't step her through the process. She doesn't know how to make a folder. Signal hasn't beaten WhatsApp (which still uses Signal protocol) due to network effects, but it is a great solution for everyday users.

mindslight 1mo ago
This relies on an implicit idea that a system being closed is required for encouraging adoption, but without actually stating a concrete mechanism for that. One such mechanism I often lament is that closed systems attract investment dollars seeking to capture a market then eventually enshittify, and that investment can be spent on marketing/polish/etc to drive adoption. I don't think this is the dynamic around Signal though, per se. I can envision a world in which Signal still did everything they did to promote themselves, while also not binding themselves to mobile phones, Google Play, phone numbers as identity, secure enclaves, etc - where they were just as successful at gaining "normie" adoption, while also having a free foundation. This is where my criticism is coming from.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  That's one mechanism, but another mechanism is what I said - an open system fragments too much, making it completely unapproachable. Or even within one "vendor" if they can't make up their mind about how it should work (i.e. if they can't be opinionated) it's just as bad as being fragmented.
  - mindslight 1mo ago
    If there is still one company pushing their own strongly opinionated client, how does having competing options available to power users detract from that? Like I'm not saying Signal-the-client should go away, rather that Signal-the-company who runs Signal-the-server could be accepting of third party clients, to the point where Signal was easily usable from F-Droid and whatnot. How would that undermine the mass market option?
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      They do accept third party clients. They don't like it, but they don't have a choice, because they don't use device attestation.
      - mindslight 1mo ago
        Admittedly I haven't stayed up to date on what the state of the art looks like for using Signal from the libre world, I just know it's still not straightforwardly available in F-droid, and that doesn't bode well. The last I heard there was a "desktop client" but it was actually going through the mobile client. This could be out of date, although I haven't seen anything directly refuting it and I haven't bothered to dig. To the original point, the proprietaryesque policies rooted in the authoritarian desire for centralized have severely hampered my interest/adoption, and I still don't see how policies disrupting the libre ecosystem in any way encourage adoption in the non-libre ecosystem.

by tapoxi 1mo ago

mindslight 1mo ago

This relies on an implicit idea that a system being closed is required for encouraging adoption, but without actually stating a concrete mechanism for that. One such mechanism I often lament is that closed systems attract investment dollars seeking to capture a market then eventually enshittify, and that investment can be spent on marketing/polish/etc to drive adoption. I don't think this is the dynamic around Signal though, per se. I can envision a world in which Signal still did everything they did to promote themselves, while also not binding themselves to mobile phones, Google Play, phone numbers as identity, secure enclaves, etc - where they were just as successful at gaining "normie" adoption, while also having a free foundation. This is where my criticism is coming from.

inigyou 1mo ago
That's one mechanism, but another mechanism is what I said - an open system fragments too much, making it completely unapproachable. Or even within one "vendor" if they can't make up their mind about how it should work (i.e. if they can't be opinionated) it's just as bad as being fragmented.
- mindslight 1mo ago
  If there is still one company pushing their own strongly opinionated client, how does having competing options available to power users detract from that? Like I'm not saying Signal-the-client should go away, rather that Signal-the-company who runs Signal-the-server could be accepting of third party clients, to the point where Signal was easily usable from F-Droid and whatnot. How would that undermine the mass market option?
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    They do accept third party clients. They don't like it, but they don't have a choice, because they don't use device attestation.
    - mindslight 1mo ago
      Admittedly I haven't stayed up to date on what the state of the art looks like for using Signal from the libre world, I just know it's still not straightforwardly available in F-droid, and that doesn't bode well. The last I heard there was a "desktop client" but it was actually going through the mobile client. This could be out of date, although I haven't seen anything directly refuting it and I haven't bothered to dig. To the original point, the proprietaryesque policies rooted in the authoritarian desire for centralized have severely hampered my interest/adoption, and I still don't see how policies disrupting the libre ecosystem in any way encourage adoption in the non-libre ecosystem.