[deleted] wrote
Reply to comment by quandyalaterreux in Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention by quandyalaterreux
quandyalaterreux OP wrote
Federated protocol: you have to keep banning IPs
That's something very easy for censors. I mean just look at the Tor Project's bridge distribution, even though there are loads of non-public bridges, China is able to keep up and block virtually all of them. But, domain fronting works in China.
Non-federated protocol: your mobile phone number, which is associated with your real name, is your ID
Federated protocol: your account on a server is your ID
I agree, a phone number isn't the best thing, but a federated protocol is worse since you're giving more metadata by associating your account with a particular instance (e.g. [email protected]).
I don't see how is non-federated better. Best case scenario, they are equally bad.
I think Moxie did a pretty convincing case against it: https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
[deleted] wrote
quandyalaterreux OP wrote
I'm not sure why you keep bring that up as a grave issue. The one aspect of XMPP that is a privacy concern is how the roster is maintained by default.
Because with centralization Signal can make sure that their servers don't have too much metadata (see https://signal.org/bigbrother/eastern-virginia-grand-jury/) but with decentralization where's that guarantee?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments