1 point

Any tool that calls itself “open source” and uses proprietary encryption that they refuse to let any neutral third party review, should absolutely not be trusted.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

It’s open standard, not open source

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

but we need to trust them that the standard is actually implemented

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Did people call RCS open source? I’m not a huge follower of the standard, but I don’t think I ever heard that said. In fact, I’ve heard people complain about not just the proprietary encryption but lack of E2E and carrier/Google control.

Its only advantages are that it is better than SMS and supported by the carriers, Google and Apple sometime this year.

It’s a shitty standard but given how shitty SMS is, I’m willing to hold my nose and jump in.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Signal > Matrix/Element > RCS > SMS.

iMessage isn’t in the equation because it only works on a single platform.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

signal protocol is basically the opposite, open source but the company is hostile to 3rd party client development

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

There’s a few clients for Signal, nobody is preventing developers from creating apps; there’s Molly, gurk-rs, Axolotl, Flare, signal-cli, Pidgin (with the Signal plugin.

The problem is 3rd party clients don’t implement all features because it takes a lot of work and they’re created/developed by volunteers - just take a look at Matrix and how many clients support all features or even just group end-to-end encryption (E2EE). Last I checked many third party Matrix clients didn’t support encrypted group messages, primarily just Element, the reference client built by the matrix developers. So you have the same problem on Signal that you have on Matrix.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

In Matrix a direct chat is a group chat with two people.

Also I’ve used several clients and they all supported encryption.

permalink
report
parent
reply