⚠️ A reminder that like all social networks Mastodon is not end-to-end encrypted.
-
️ A reminder that like all social networks Mastodon is not end-to-end encrypted. It is not designed or intended as a way to send sensitive information.If you need to send private messages with sensitive content, use a secure messenger with end-to-end encryption both present and activated.
Some options are XMPP with OMEMO (https://joinjabber.org), @delta & @briar
Another is Signal, but Signal is centralised which makes it more vulnerable to enshittification or selling itself to Meta etc.
-
️ A reminder that like all social networks Mastodon is not end-to-end encrypted. It is not designed or intended as a way to send sensitive information.
If you need to send private messages with sensitive content, use a secure messenger with end-to-end encryption both present and activated.
Some options are XMPP with OMEMO (https://joinjabber.org), @delta & @briar
Another is Signal, but Signal is centralised which makes it more vulnerable to enshittification or selling itself to Meta etc.
@FediTips @briar I really like XMPP but it's not without it's flaws currently. Check out this pretty good post here: https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/
-
@FediTips @briar I really like XMPP but it's not without it's flaws currently. Check out this pretty good post here: https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/
Yes, have seen that.
They write: "(Federated networks) can feel like you’re controlling your own destiny, whether or not that’s true. And those emotions can be a powerful thing."
It's kind of patronising and arrogant, implying that those who value decentralisation are deluding themselves for emotional reasons
Sort of difficult to take the author seriously when they won't take the reader seriously.
They also don't say what happens if Signal's owner sells out to Meta again.
-
️ A reminder that like all social networks Mastodon is not end-to-end encrypted. It is not designed or intended as a way to send sensitive information.
If you need to send private messages with sensitive content, use a secure messenger with end-to-end encryption both present and activated.
Some options are XMPP with OMEMO (https://joinjabber.org), @delta & @briar
Another is Signal, but Signal is centralised which makes it more vulnerable to enshittification or selling itself to Meta etc.
-
Signal is run by Brian Acton, the billionaire who sold Whatsapp to Meta.
That's how he became a billionaire.
-
Signal is run by Brian Acton, the billionaire who sold Whatsapp to Meta.
That's how he became a billionaire.
@FediTips but signal is now a foundation directed by @Mer__edith . It got seed capital from acton according to wikipedia, bit does acton still has an executive power in 2025? I am not sure he could sell the foundation to anyone by principle.
-
Signal is run by Brian Acton, the billionaire who sold Whatsapp to Meta.
That's how he became a billionaire.
-
@FediTips but signal is now a foundation directed by @Mer__edith . It got seed capital from acton according to wikipedia, bit does acton still has an executive power in 2025? I am not sure he could sell the foundation to anyone by principle.
@f4grx @FediTips @Mer__edith it is absolutely delusional to think that Signal, which is run by a non-profit foundation, is at risk of being ‘sold’ to Meta. Anyone who scare-mongers with stuff like that is either a complete pillock or actively trying to undermine civil society.
-
️ A reminder that like all social networks Mastodon is not end-to-end encrypted. It is not designed or intended as a way to send sensitive information.
If you need to send private messages with sensitive content, use a secure messenger with end-to-end encryption both present and activated.
Some options are XMPP with OMEMO (https://joinjabber.org), @delta & @briar
Another is Signal, but Signal is centralised which makes it more vulnerable to enshittification or selling itself to Meta etc.
@FediTips @briar Come on, those sneers at @signalapp are unwarranted.
#SignalApp was created by very privacy focused devs, its encryption tech is well regarded, and more recently even helped by a donation from one of WhatApp’s founders, who, after selling that to Meta, then realised that secure messaging •without that taint• is still necessary!
Sure, publicise other •security audited• systems •easily usable• by •non-techie• people, but…
-
@FediTips @briar Come on, those sneers at @signalapp are unwarranted.
#SignalApp was created by very privacy focused devs, its encryption tech is well regarded, and more recently even helped by a donation from one of WhatApp’s founders, who, after selling that to Meta, then realised that secure messaging •without that taint• is still necessary!
Sure, publicise other •security audited• systems •easily usable• by •non-techie• people, but…
It's not intended as sneering, it's a fact that being centralised makes you more vulnerable to takeovers and/or enshittification. It could be the most well-meaning person in the world running it, it's the structure that is the problem. It makes it too easy for outsiders to swoop in, and too tempting for insiders to sell out.
Another fact is that Signal is run by the billionaire who sold Whatsapp to Meta. It seems reasonable to be concerned he might do it again to get even richer.
-
@f4grx @FediTips @Mer__edith it is absolutely delusional to think that Signal, which is run by a non-profit foundation, is at risk of being ‘sold’ to Meta. Anyone who scare-mongers with stuff like that is either a complete pillock or actively trying to undermine civil society.
"Anyone who scare-mongers with stuff like that is ... actively trying to undermine civil society."
Undermine civil society? For mildly questioning a platform run by a billionaire?
I don't think billionaires are on the side of civil society, it seems prudent to be cautious about their involvement.
-
@FediTips but signal is now a foundation directed by @Mer__edith . It got seed capital from acton according to wikipedia, bit does acton still has an executive power in 2025? I am not sure he could sell the foundation to anyone by principle.
"does acton still has an executive power in 2025?"
According to a legal filing from Feb 2024, Brian Acton is the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Signal Technology Foundation:
-
Being FOSS doesn't stop centralisation.
Centralisation is the problem, it means that someone nasty can take over the entire network very easily and people won't be able to leave because of the network effect that traps them there.
FOSS just means you could set up another network, but no one is going to join it because the big network won't federate with your network. This has happened with Signal, it refuses to federate with other instances of Signal.
-
"Anyone who scare-mongers with stuff like that is ... actively trying to undermine civil society."
Undermine civil society? For mildly questioning a platform run by a billionaire?
I don't think billionaires are on the side of civil society, it seems prudent to be cautious about their involvement.
@FediTips telling people to not use one of the most powerful privacy tools available is not mild questioning
Non-profit foundations do not have shares - Acton would not profit from its sale (even if one was remotely possible, which it isn’t). You are actively misinforming your followers and making it harder for them to protect their privacy.
Shame on you.
-
It's not intended as sneering, it's a fact that being centralised makes you more vulnerable to takeovers and/or enshittification. It could be the most well-meaning person in the world running it, it's the structure that is the problem. It makes it too easy for outsiders to swoop in, and too tempting for insiders to sell out.
Another fact is that Signal is run by the billionaire who sold Whatsapp to Meta. It seems reasonable to be concerned he might do it again to get even richer.
@FediTips Signal is aware of the problems of centralisation and does continue to work on improvements in that regard. You’re right to flag that as a concern, but be fair.
Yes, Brian Acton, formerly of WhatsApp, is now more recently involved with Signal (after having belatedly realised Meta couldn’t be trusted with WhatsApp), but he neither runs nor “owns” Signal and as open source tech it can’t be sold to Meta, etc (and would be forked if sthg bad ever did happen).
-
@FediTips telling people to not use one of the most powerful privacy tools available is not mild questioning
Non-profit foundations do not have shares - Acton would not profit from its sale (even if one was remotely possible, which it isn’t). You are actively misinforming your followers and making it harder for them to protect their privacy.
Shame on you.
I didn't tell people not to use it, I warned them it was centralised.
"You are actively misinforming your followers"
That's kind of a serious accusation? Which specific part of my post is misinforming them?
It IS centralised, and that DOES make it more vulnerable. Are you saying I shouldn't inform them about this?
-
@FediTips Signal is aware of the problems of centralisation and does continue to work on improvements in that regard. You’re right to flag that as a concern, but be fair.
Yes, Brian Acton, formerly of WhatsApp, is now more recently involved with Signal (after having belatedly realised Meta couldn’t be trusted with WhatsApp), but he neither runs nor “owns” Signal and as open source tech it can’t be sold to Meta, etc (and would be forked if sthg bad ever did happen).
"but he neither runs nor “owns” Signal "
Acton is listed by the local government of California as the CEO, Secretary and CFO of the Signal Technology Foundation which owns Signal:
The form is dated Feb 2024 so I assume it is current.
-
@FediTips Signal is aware of the problems of centralisation and does continue to work on improvements in that regard. You’re right to flag that as a concern, but be fair.
Yes, Brian Acton, formerly of WhatsApp, is now more recently involved with Signal (after having belatedly realised Meta couldn’t be trusted with WhatsApp), but he neither runs nor “owns” Signal and as open source tech it can’t be sold to Meta, etc (and would be forked if sthg bad ever did happen).
"as open source tech it can’t be sold to Meta, etc (and would be forked if sthg bad ever did happen)."
It's not about the software, it's about the instance.
If you have a large collection of people on one instance, and the instance doesn't federate, then people are trapped there and will find it difficult to move elsewhere if the instance enshittifies and starts doing bad stuff.
FOSS doesn't stop the network effect, only decentralisation does.
-
"but he neither runs nor “owns” Signal "
Acton is listed by the local government of California as the CEO, Secretary and CFO of the Signal Technology Foundation which owns Signal:
The form is dated Feb 2024 so I assume it is current.
@FediTips Yes, he is heavily involved (thanks for the research, and, yes, I agree that one person having multiple key roles is very unhealthy!), but I’m sure he is not able to act unilaterally.
It’s absolutely the right thing to encourage use of secure messaging, and highlighting more secure systems away from less secure/private ones (eg, SMS, Telegram, WhatsApp), but while some interesting options are still less mature, a usable solution is surely better than none?
-
@FediTips Yes, he is heavily involved (thanks for the research, and, yes, I agree that one person having multiple key roles is very unhealthy!), but I’m sure he is not able to act unilaterally.
It’s absolutely the right thing to encourage use of secure messaging, and highlighting more secure systems away from less secure/private ones (eg, SMS, Telegram, WhatsApp), but while some interesting options are still less mature, a usable solution is surely better than none?
Fair enough, and just to be clear, I'm not saying don't use it, all the options have crappy sides to them. I wouldn't have mentioned Signal as an option otherwise.
But I am worried that if a centralised option becomes the default one, then history will just repeat itself
