7mo ago

Recent commits suggest Signal is preparing a paid subscription for backups.

github.com Signal-Android/app/src/main/res/values/strings.xml at 7ee1b1386b6a6d5bf9ff90d6b6e20ec466692b7a · signalapp/Signal-Android

A private messenger for Android. Contribute to signalapp/Signal-Android development by creating an account on GitHub.

You're viewing a single thread.

85 comments

I don't mind paying a fair price, for a service, so they should go for it. I use both Signal and Telegram, and I would pay for Telegram too, if the price was more fair...
- Don't use Telegram, let alone pay for it. So many red flags with Telegram.
  
  Feel free to list them - with evidence and not just prejudice...?
  
  No end-to-end encryption by default, you have to explicitly start a secret chat. That means that instead of it all being encrypted noise, secret chats stand out.
  Servers are not open source (last time I checked). Why not? Seriously, why not?
  Admittedly, not much of an issue any more, but in the beginning they had horrible security (so did WhatsApp until Facebook threw some competent engineers at the problem)
  
  There's end-to-end encryption. It's fine that you can chose what needs to be private, and what doesn't need to be.
  There could be several reasons as to why the servers are not OS. Why do you need that part to be OS? Seriously, why?
  Oh, so your problem with Telegram is, that it had some issues in the past, just like EVERY other app in the beginning? Nice one. :-)
  So, let's summarize.
  You lie, and say that there's no end-to-end encryption when there is.
  It would be preferable to have OS servers, but it's not a major issue, since everything else is.
  You have an issue with something in "Back to the Future"... Which is no longer an issue.
  
  You lie, and say that there’s no end-to-end encryption when there is
  That is not what I said. Please take a deep breath, maybe go outside for a minute, and read my reply again.
  
  First of all, you injected yourself in my debate with another person. You do it by answering for that person, which mean, you lie by default, since you don't know that persons answers. Then you say there are no end-to-end encryption by default, but that depends on what you use it for. Calls are encrypted by default.
  But nice to know that you really didn't have any serious red flags. Now it would be nice to hear from the person I was originally debating with...
  
  Ah sorry. I thought you were here on lemmy for an open discussion and polite, good-faith arguments, not just trolling and name-calling. My bad.
  
  So, where did I use name-calling?
  An open discussion is always welcome. Someone hijacking a conversation is not. So yeah... your bad.
  
  Sorry, I don't talk to liars.
  
  Being one yourself, that would make sense. You'd have a strange conversation.
  
  Woot?! (not op),
  He said "no e2e by default" which is true. Straw man/missrepresentation
  You post on the fediverse, which is decentral - why shouldn't you want this for telegram too? Open source server would allow to check / trust code, host your own, be more resilient against central attacks/malicious intend. Also you just waved it away saying it is not a biggy - maybe to you.
  Last time I checked telegram still has major trust issues for me. No way to know how much governments are involved, code is not independently checked for security (happy to be proven wrong on especially the last one)
  Its totally fine that you like telegram, but you can do that while acknowledging others preferences
  
  it's not true. Default calls are encrypted.
  I have not said anything about what I want for Telegram. Are you trying to make a straw man here? Not that you want to interject yourself into this debate - then tell me, what is the big problem with the serverside not being OS? I did write it would be optimal, but what is the big issue for you? Try to answer without making another straw man about something I didn't say... ;-)
  I don't care about your trust issues. Go deal with them...
  So far, don't you think that you really would know, if government was involved in any way that didn't involve crime fighting? Do you prefer an app, where crime roam free? Is that your issue? That it doesn't?
  AFAIK it's you and two others, who don't acknowledge my preferences... So please consider following your own advice!
- Price is fair but features aren’t worth it.
  
  You contradict yourself. You can't say that the price is fair, for something that doesn't have the features that the price should cover.
  
  All I am saying is that this price for premium would be fair for me if the features are valuable enough. Sometimes premiums are just too expensive even if they are good, so I boycott them.
  
  I agree on that part. Greed is a bad thing, and I don't support that either.

85 comments