• easily3667
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    Nope, pretty much every sms user screamed out simultaneously on reddit telling them “if you take this away I’m never going to be able to convince another soul to use signal, it’s a massive selling point that it’s all one app” and they said “but I’m better than you at knowing what you need” and did it anyway.

    • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think their logic makes sense though. Signal as an SMS app is functionally pointless. If you can’t convince someone to use signal because they are just using SMS anyway, then what is the point? If you are prostletyzing encrypted communication to people, an important aspect is communicating the why’s. I think sms on the platform ultimately did do more harm than good, it confused the normal people, and presented risks for leaking data, since it was not always clear if hitting the send button would result in an encrypted message or not.

      A nice example that is always brought up with signal, is matrix, which perfectly demonstrates the issue at hand. Matrix, which is touted as a ‘secure’ platform, is actually the opposite, it requires positive action to enable and maintain encrypted messaging, and because it allows insecure communication, it opens up tons of holes, either from user error or unclear messaging from the platform. (Things like severe metadata leakage and unclear communication as to what is encrypted or not). There is a reason governments and militaries around the world use signal over other options.

      I think you only need to look at the recent Atlantic leaks to demonstrate that users don’t actually know best as well. You have a general user base that has poor security hygiene and the concept of op sec is completely foreign. Confidential group chats would be constantly compromised by one person losing a data connection resulting in the message being sent as SMS and if you don’t have automatic fail over, then SMS support offers no functional benefit, and only serves to add a workload that accomplishes nothing.

      Signal has cultivated a platform that has no unclear boundaries. If you send a message on signal, it is e2e encrypted every single time, there is no scenario where this is not the case. That’s more valuable than presenting the option to have an encrypted conversation.

      I also don’t really think that is a valid argument, none of signal’s contemporaries offered this feature and it didn’t stop them. I have never heard someone say that they can’t get people to use Messenger, Whatsapp, or Telegram because it doesn’t support SMS.

      Another counter point is that signal’s user base has only grown since they removed the SMS feature.

      Finally, I don’t think that what you are saying aligns with the previous comment anyway, in fact it seems like it was agreeing with me. The decision wasn’t done because of developer resources, it was a conscious decision they made because they believed that SMS should not be part of their product.

      • easily3667
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        This is long, and there are probably valid points, but I got to a point in the middle where it was abundantly clear you never used the sms functions of signal (you described a ux event that is impossible) so I don’t really feel like taking this seriously.

        I won’t disagree that users can have bad opsec…but that’s not up to signal to decide, it’s for them to improve.

        Matrix has iirc one checkbox to enable encryption by default and it’s been set for a while unless I’m mistaken (noone I know uses matrix). Yes you have to set it for groups, but large online group discussions usually don’t need encryption on. There’s also still the self-hosted option where a group chat with your friends on your server doesn’t need encryption at all.

        I guess my point is there’s really more nuance here than I care to argue about, but the SMS tooling in signal was nowhere near as big of a point of confusion as you think it was, and I have not gotten a single new person onto signal since they took it out.

        • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I remember multiple times my chat switching to SMS when I did not have a stable data connection, though, admittedly, it’s been years since signal dropped support and I don’t remember the specific mechanics of the situation, but I specifically remember the same message chain would have both sms and signal messages in it.

          I’ve used signal for at least 6 years now, and I remember online discourse being centered around why signal included SMS in the first place, with most of the discussion being around how people dislike the false sense of security comingling insecure data with secure data provided. The discourse didn’t change until after signal announced they were dropping support and suddenly people came out of the Woodwork talking about how horrible signal is for adopting good security practices.

          Why doesn’t telegram or Whatsapp get the same treatment?