I use Telegram, like betamax have I backed the wrong horse?
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
255 points (98.9% liked)
Privacy
1228 readers
463 users here now
Protect your privacy in the digital world
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be nice, civil and no bigotry/prejudice.
- No tankies/alt-right fascists. The former can be tolerated but the latter are banned.
- Stay on topic.
- Don't promote big-tech software.
- No reposting of news that was already posted. Even from different sources.
- No crypto, blockchain, etc.
- No Xitter links. (only allowed when can't fact check any other way, use xcancel)
Related communities:
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
Let's hope they'll be able to continue to use it. It (and all other messengers with proper E2EE) is already on track to be outlawed in Sweden and France, and the new government in Germany will be pro mass-surveillance, too.
Moral of the story? Use ~~selfhostable~~ decentralized messaging instead.
We have never come across one that is as easy to use as Signal and has no problems with encryption, either that it can have its encryption turned off, it breaks easily or that it makes dubious claims with few-no audits to back them up.
Plus the common person enjoys the fun features of Signal or other easy messengers, most decentralised messages do not have these features, are indefinitely working on them or make them not as easy to use, leading to most being uninterested in those messengers.
We have tried most if not all of them, than most and they are definitely lacking as much as we wish they were not. Decentralised encrypted (or partially encrypted) messengers always seem to have problems whether it's with their encryption, moderation tools, connectivity or the lack of other features.
No way in hell my relatives are going to use a messenger I selfhosted. My brother doesn't even use Signal for whatever reason, even though even my grandmother has it.
That is the problem of getting another person to change something... A very valid problem but not inherent to decentralization.
Kinda is, though - regular people have a lot more trust in centralized services, and Signal has a very large userbase compared to anything selfhostable. And IME they really, really hate installing new messengers.
Plus, selfhosted E2EE would still be just as illegal as Signal. Many people won't be willing to participate in illegal activity, and if you just don't use E2EE on your selfhosted solution the usefulness seems rather dubious.
I don't think any ban on such selfhostable servers is enforceable at all.
What if the government shuts off the app source (and source code) and makes it illegal for anyone to download or redistribute it?
It doesn't necessarily have to be enforcable to deter most people. At minimum, with such a ban there's zero chance to communicate with government agencies with E2EE.
well in the end it's just HTTPS traffic.. police has to search your phone to know if you are a user.
but if you federate (on clearnet), that could give away that you host it
Well, technically, they could MITM the traffic similarly to how they did to jabber . ru. But a) there are mitigations for this and b) more importantly - they would need to bother. No one's going to bother doing it to a random family server that has attracted no previous attention.
true but this is not yet easy enough for normal humans. selfhosting anything is not yet easy enough
And is potentially even less secure if someone who has no idea about managing a server at all tries to spin up an online service.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)