[HN Gopher] Signal Introduces Stories
___________________________________________________________________
Signal Introduces Stories
Author : mikece
Score : 201 points
Date : 2022-11-07 16:59 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (signal.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (signal.org)
| dont__panic wrote:
| Disregard this comment. This feature, while disappointing to me,
| is a fine addition to Signal for many people who would like to
| use the Story format without snooping or ads from Meta. That is a
| good thing and we should celebrate it.
|
| I previously commented something much more negative and snarky. I
| regret it.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| People aren't expecting to get quote sniped so they assume that
| you have read the previous section where they explain in
| exacting detail what value they see in the story format.
|
| > In the past years, stories have emerged as a new way to
| communicate, with their own unique purposes, norms, and
| idiosyncrasies. Ephemeral, low-stakes, and image-heavy, people
| use stories to share updates about their lives without the
| expectation of a response.
|
| > Sometimes you just need a chill way to show your crush that
| you went to a very cool concert, without having to text them.
| Stories let you share your life with a select group of people
| in a way that doesn't result in a new message notification.
| They give you a place to tell the kinds of jokes that work
| better in a sequential image or video format, and to share what
| you're doing without the pressure of a conversation.
|
| > Stories have emerged to serve these specific functions and
| others in the broader communications landscape, and many of us
| have integrated them as one of the ways that we connect with
| one another. That's why they have a natural place in any
| messaging app, including Signal.
|
| > Stories also happen to be one of the most common feature
| requests we receive from all over the world. People use them,
| people want them, so we're providing a way to do stories
| privately. And without having to wade through a sea of ads.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Good point. I do not like the Story format, so I'm pretty
| prejudiced against them. The author does a good job earlier
| in the announcement of explaining the reasoning, so my
| sniping above is exactly that -- unfair sneering.
|
| Thanks for calling me out here. It goes to show that even
| when you feel very grumpy about a change, you shouldn't
| resort to unfair arguments like I did.
| [deleted]
| pvg wrote:
| _Don 't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-
| examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including
| at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes [...]
|
| Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or
| post to complain about in the thread. Find something
| interesting to respond to instead._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| dont__panic wrote:
| It might be a smidge snarky, but it's literally the only
| justification Signal provides for adding this feature to
| their app. Why is it not OK to analyze their reasoning?
| pvg wrote:
| Because it's not analysis, just generic sneering. Picking N
| boring things to complain about is not any better than
| picking one boring thing to complain about.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Thanks for calling this out. I was grumpy and unfair.
| I'll remember this in the future and try to do better.
| pvg wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1096677
|
| I wouldn't write this today either - it was a much, much
| smaller HN and a smaller nerd internet. Although
| amusingly enough, the Rails release notes were edited
| after that showed up on HN but I don't think Signal is
| going to give you even that satisfaction, sadly.
| ViceCitySage wrote:
| Don't really care for this but more feature parity with WhatsApp
| or SnapChat could hopefully attract more people and make it
| somewhat mainstream. Personally, I know a lot of people that use
| these messengers just to look at or post stories.
| CosmicShadow wrote:
| That thing nobody wants is for some reason on a chat app now
| [deleted]
| jellicle wrote:
| Signal has already committed suicide by removing its most
| important feature, "compatibility with other messaging apps",
| from its list of supported features. It's a dead app walking at
| this point, though it will probably take a few years to wind down
| and die.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Same applies to every other messaging app that's not federated
| which is almost all of them.
| jellicle wrote:
| Yep, and if you check your local app store, it's full of
| thousands of also-ran messaging apps that are, indeed, dead.
| While Signal had SMS it had a feature that was NOT common on
| other apps, now it has the SAME feature set as, say,
| Whatsapp, and so instead of being a better Whatsapp (because
| it had features Whatsapp didn't) it's now a worse Whatsapp
| (same feature set, much smaller userbase), so it's doomed.
| Just like all the other also-ran apps.
| barbazoo wrote:
| For many it's still better than WhatsApp because it
| implements actual E2EE.
| freeplay wrote:
| My initial reaction was "oh no. Signal finally broke down and has
| begun adding the annoying social features."
|
| After thinking about it, I actually don't mind it.
|
| I am in a big (~15 people) group chat with my family. Often times
| someone will spam the chat with vacation pics or something they
| cooked for dinner. I don't particularly dislike that, but it
| seems like posting those pictures to their story would be a much
| better way to share.
|
| The main problem is, and always has been, getting a bunch of
| iPhone users in the US to use any messaging app besides iMessage.
| Let alone having them post to a story within that app.
| starsep wrote:
| I don't like stories but at least there is a way to opt-out. Many
| people do like them and expected them so it's understandable move
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| I find it interesting that the option to opt out of Stories
| exists in the _Chat settings_. Apparently they couldn 't be
| buggered to even create a link to view the settings for Story
| inside of the Story UI's context menu.
|
| But hey, I'm an old, biased, grumpy man. They're taking away
| SMS (which was what allowed me to get it onto my family's
| phones) and shoving TikTok in my face instead. I'm displeased
| by this and looking for things to pick on.
| endorphine wrote:
| When I first opened the app and saw a "Stories" tab, I thought
| "oh no... not here too, ffs...". Then I immediately went to the
| settings and was mildly relieved (but perhaps I'm naive) to see
| that I could opt-out.
|
| Now I dread the day when they might decide to make it so that you
| won't be able to opt-out. Why can't we have nice things?
| [deleted]
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Perverse incentives to get folks to use signal more. Checking
| it when you get a message isn't good enough, need to get
| creators and influencers on the platform to let folks doom
| scroll.
|
| How many followers on Signal do you have?
| varenc wrote:
| > How many followers on Signal do you have?
|
| As of now, Signal still has no concept of followers. My
| stories are at most only visible to all my contacts on
| Signal. In my mind this is a big difference between all the
| other major platforms with stories.
| justupvoting wrote:
| Well that'll do for my dose of weltschmerz today, thanks.
| hbn wrote:
| Is there anyone that actually gets excited when they see a
| platform has stories, or is adding them?
|
| I feel like it's just out-of-touch product managers who see
| everyone else doing the stories thing and blindly aping it
| cause it's the thing to do.
|
| In reality, the only place people seem to use stories is
| Snapchat, Instagram, and seemingly some people post to
| Facebook stories but I think it's mostly cause of the toggle
| in Instagram to cross-post to there.
| bentley wrote:
| > Is there anyone that actually gets excited when they see
| a platform has stories, or is adding them?
|
| I was honestly excited when I saw the headline, not because
| I have any intention of using stories myself, but because
| my friends have repeatedly tried to explain to me why they
| use stories on Whatsapp and Snapchat, and I have some hope
| this will make Signal more attractive to them.
|
| I feel the same way about stickers and the Giphy proxy,
| both of which are features I would never have asked for and
| was initially skeptical of, but that have wound up being
| widely used by most of my friends who use Signal.
| jiripospisil wrote:
| I don't quite understand the appeal but if it brings more people
| to using Signal, I'm all for it.
| bkus wrote:
| Please bring back SMS support. It's hard enough to convince
| people to use Signal in the first place. Nobody is going to
| juggle multiple apps, they'll just go back to SMS default app.
| worez wrote:
| so many people I've gotten to switch to signal have asked me
| about them discontinuing SMS support. my family members aren't
| going to keep using signal just to message a few others, when
| the majority still use text.
|
| still unsure how this decision made it through.
| sakisv wrote:
| Nice, I like seeing new features being added - despite on my
| personal opinion about them. As someone else pointed out, the
| more feature parity we reach with WhatsApp (or other popular
| messengers) the fewer battles we'll have to fight to bring people
| over.
| tb_technical wrote:
| Signals existence was too inconvenient for oppressive
| governments/law enforcement, so instead they've been subverted.
| [deleted]
| RunSet wrote:
| https://getsession.org/
|
| * Doesn't require users to provide a phone number.
|
| * Doesn't use centralized servers.
|
| Hopefully Session will stay legit for a while. _Just_ when I
| get most of my contacts to use Signal, Signal moves to embed a
| cryptocurrency in the app and starts pushing Storytime.
|
| https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/signal.html
| renewiltord wrote:
| Strange choice in terms of product. But perhaps they're seeing
| people clamor for broadcast stuff in a secure messenger.
| dewey wrote:
| I like it! Making it more "mainstream" is the way to go even if
| purists might say that it's feature bloat for their secure
| messenger.
|
| It's similar to how it's good if more people use Tor for all
| kinds of activities as it doesn't immediately label you as
| suspicious just because you use Tor or Signal.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Making people juggle a different app for SMS is the opposite of
| being mainstream friendly.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Do Telegram, Whatsapp, FB Messenger, etc support SMS?
| sofixa wrote:
| No, because SMS is obsolete and nobody outside of the
| US(why?!??!) still uses it for anything else other than the
| occasional confirmation/MFA code.
| patall wrote:
| To give a counter example, here in Sweden, SMS&MMS are
| used quite a lot. Including bidding for housing. And it's
| not due to a lack of alternatives.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| On this new Google Pixel 7, the app launcher thing is limited
| to just 4 apps. Now that I can't use Signal for SMS, it has
| lost it's convenient spot on my home screen. I find myself
| using it less, so like you, I'm very displeased about their
| dropping SMS. The forum thread on Signal's Discourse about
| the change is full of snide remarks from their moderators,
| and it's extremely disappointing to see Signal community
| leaders disparaging their own long-time users over SMS.
| Turning back on the legacy of TextSecure in this way
| justifies framing this as a betrayal.
|
| All that being said...
|
| I still trust Signal's Stories implementation over any other.
| While I believe they could have competed with SMS-capable
| apps like iMessage, Google Messages, and Samsung Messages, if
| pivoting into WhatsApp/Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok territory is
| what they'd rather do, then I believe they can execute it
| well.
| kibwen wrote:
| Conversely, when Signal drops support for SMS, I expect to
| stop messaging anyone still on SMS. So far it's been fairly
| painless getting the people I actually care about to
| switch, but YMMV. My mom doesn't care if she has to use a
| separate app to message me.
| extr0pian wrote:
| I know that Signal announced plans to have accounts based on
| usernames rather than phone numbers in the past. I wonder if
| the removal of SMS has something to do with usernames.
| Vinnl wrote:
| They didn't have much choice, unfortunately:
| https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-removing-
| sms...
| Blahah wrote:
| I use signal for SMS. Is this an iOS thing? If so presumably
| it's an Apple restriction?
|
| edit: ah, they announced recently that they are removing SMS
| support in Android. The reasoning is solid IMO, I've
| accidentally sent insecure messages before.
| dewey wrote:
| Sounds like an Android thing: https://signal.org/blog/sms-
| removal-android/
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They can remove the "accidentally" without removing the
| ability to access as many messages in one place as
| possible.
| gwill wrote:
| how do you use it for sms on ios? their website says they
| don't support it. https://support.signal.org/hc/en-
| us/articles/360007321171-Ca...
| dewey wrote:
| Maybe I'm the odd one but I haven't received an SMS in a
| decade. It's all iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram and the only
| SMS are transactional that I receive but never send.
| [deleted]
| ptsd_dalmatian wrote:
| This is a great way how to keep my friends updated with my life
| in privacy respecting way. Thank you Signal team. I love you all.
| ENOTTY wrote:
| The phone contact list becoming the root of trust for defining
| personal trust relationships is rather unwelcome. Then software
| taking that data and wordlessly interpreting it as a binary
| trust/do-not-trust decision is also unwelcome.
|
| If I am networking at a conference, I frequently exchange contact
| info by entering info into each others' contact app or sending
| each other a text. I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this.
|
| It's one thing to tell two users that both parties are using
| Signal and in each other's contact list (contact discovery). It's
| another thing to encourage users to broadcast messages to all of
| them (via Stories, and the default share setting is all contacts)
|
| In summary, while I'm neutral on the Stories feature, I think the
| implementation/rollout has been clumsy.
| [deleted]
| varenc wrote:
| This was almost posted here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509571
| dang wrote:
| Comments moved thither. Thanks!
|
| Edit: whoops - this one was the earlier post. We'll merge
| everything back hither.
|
| Edit 2: je suis idiot. Will fix.
|
| Edit 3: I think this is correct now
| [deleted]
| mcjiggerlog wrote:
| Personally I'd rather avoid the feature bloat. I also think it
| just waters-down the "secure" image they are clearly going for. I
| mean, broadcasting images to your contact list isn't exactly what
| I think of when I think "private messaging".
| GycDH6mb wrote:
| They actually allow you to turn off stories in settings, and
| that entire tab will just disappear. You have to respect that!
| falcolas wrote:
| My curmudgeonly self would prefer if the stories were off by
| default. It's not a feature I'm even remotely interested in,
| and feature creep really isn't a positive thing.
|
| I've tried snapchat and Instagram stories, and I hate that
| the messages disappear with time. It seems counter-intuitive
| for an asynchronous communication method, and that doesn't
| even count how it always feels like another FOMO marketing
| gag to keep you engaged with the app.
|
| Just let people delete posts (and really delete them to
| boot).
| dunefox wrote:
| Then don't use it. There, it's private again.
| autoexec wrote:
| > broadcasting images to your contact list isn't exactly what I
| think of when I think "private messaging".
|
| Neither was signal taking your contact list and uploading a
| copy along with your name and photo and storing that data
| forever in the cloud. Neither was refusing to update their
| privacy policy to reflect their new data collection practices.
| A company that promotes itself to whistleblowers and human
| rights activists and then lies to them about what data they
| collect and keep is highly unethical.
|
| None of this inspires confidence in Signal as a private/secure
| messaging service. I've moved away from it. I wish them luck as
| a social media platform.
| bentley wrote:
| > Neither was signal taking your contact list and uploading a
| copy along with your name and photo and storing that data
| forever in the cloud.
|
| It seems incomplete to not mention that that data is end-to-
| end encrypted, and that name and photo are optional.
| autoexec wrote:
| In which case it would also be incomplete not to mention
| that that same data is stored insecurely and protected by
| an easy to brute force PIN. ( see
| https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-
| secu...)
| bentley wrote:
| Yes, "though contacts are encrypted, users are not
| prevented from using a weak PIN" would have been a better
| way to word this criticism from the start, rather than
| implying that they are stored completely unencrypted.
| autoexec wrote:
| "though contacts are encrypted, users are not prevented
| from using a weak PIN" ignores that Signal _encouraged_
| users to set a weak pin (for many people the word "PIN"
| means a 4 digit number) and that the data is stored using
| SGX which has already proved to be vulnerable. In my view
| the fact that they have been lying in their privacy
| policy is a much bigger problem for a company we're
| supposed to trust.
| tptacek wrote:
| Everything about Signal will make more sense if you forget
| every opinion you've had or read on a message board, and accept
| that the project's mission is simply to transition as many
| people off insecure systems as they can. For example: message
| board nerds are apoplectic about Signal's phone number
| requirement, but the systems ordinary people were already
| overwhelmingly used phone numbers already. As communications
| trend towards ephemeral video messages (I have trouble
| understanding why, too, but then I'm old), that's where they're
| going to head.
|
| The cool stuff about Signal is what happens under the hood.
| They don't want a special identity as a "private messenger";
| they believe all messaging should be secure.
| izacus wrote:
| If that's true, why do they refuse to implement backups so
| normal people don't lose data when their phone breaks or the
| app bugs out?
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| Finally!
| daggersandscars wrote:
| Anything that increases the load on Signal's servers increase
| their need to generate income. What is Signal's business plan to
| cover these costs?
| [deleted]
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| That's cool but everyone in my family that I convinced to use
| Signal just stopped using it because it was their default SMS
| app. Now it's not.
| mynameisash wrote:
| This is the boat I'm in. My version of Signal already updated
| and encouraged me to switch SMS out of the app, which I did.
| Now I'm sort of split between these two apps; my family is, for
| the moment, still using Signal for both, but I expect they'll
| soon enough be forced to use Android Messages, at which point
| we'll have little reason to continue using Signal.
|
| Once my immediate family is out, I expect it'll be a domino
| effect with my extended family and friends -- those of us on
| Signal will have fewer and fewer reasons (ie, individuals in
| our graph) to use it. As much as I'd like this to not be the
| case, I think it will be. A smallish percentage of my contact
| list was on Signal, but every few months, another few people
| would join. I expect this trend will reverse.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| Who uses SMS? I am always surprised when this feature is being
| mentioned.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Canadians, people in their 30s and beyond, people who aren't
| on Facebook, random people not in your friend group,
| businesses. But most of all, the people who keep complaining
| about SMS support! What you're saying is a bit nonsensical
| "if I ignore everyone in this group, the group has no one in
| it".
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| I use SMS from time to time too - especially random people
| that call me, but I don't see much added value of having it
| unified in Signal. I just use the default SMS app on my
| phone (iMessage app in my case, which also works for SMS).
| For me Signal is about E2E encrypted messages with more
| features, SMS is a different much more limited platform.
| thebetatester wrote:
| People with an Android phone that talk to people with iPhones
| where one of those parties doesn't use Signal. That's who.
| drcongo wrote:
| Android users apparently.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| My SMS use:
|
| 1) Spam (~40%)
|
| 2) Transactional messages (~40%)
|
| 3) Conversations with old (45+) relatives (~15%)
|
| 4) Conversations with people I barely know (parents of kids'
| friends, people responding to a web market listing, that kind
| of thing) (~5%)
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| Yeah, but why do you need Signal to handle those messages?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Lots of people like having just one messaging app, for
| messaging that's basically SMS-like. Apple and Google
| have both chased that dream for their SMS apps, for a
| good reason (Apple with more success than Google--does
| Google still have another messaging service attached to
| their SMS app, or did they give up on that when the first
| attempt was a disaster about a decade ago?)
| jvolkman wrote:
| > does Google still have another messaging service
| attached to their SMS app
|
| Google Messages (the default SMS app on newer phones)
| uses RCS if available and overlays E2E encryption on top
| using the Signal protocol.
| headhasthoughts wrote:
| So did Moxie leave because Signal got overtaken by Feds? Why is a
| secure messenger adopting the appearance of social media? Doesn't
| this work explicitly against the entire claimed reason for not
| having an account system?
|
| I would love to hear tptacek's views on this.
| NdMAND wrote:
| > So did Moxie leave because Signal got overtaken by Feds?
|
| No, he worked on Signal for so long that he probably just
| wanted to take a break to work on other passions too - he's
| still on the Signal Foundation board
| (https://signalfoundation.org/)
|
| > Why is a secure messenger adopting the appearance of social
| media?
|
| I'd argue that Stories (or equivalent) is nowadays a standard
| feature in many messengers. To more directly answer your
| question no - Signal is missing a key aspect of Social Media:
| discovery. Stories is pretty much equivalent to share a picture
| to a group of people. You can also easily disable the feature
| in settings.
|
| > Doesn't this work explicitly against the entire claimed
| reason for not having an account system?
|
| I'm not sure specifically to what you refer to but in general:
| phone numbers is still the primary way to find new folks, but
| they're working on a username feature. They will still use
| phone numbers for simplicity as "account" but again, Stories is
| simply a new interface to share pictures with your contacts.
| uoaei wrote:
| Let's not conflate "normalized" with "standard".
|
| "Standard" implies a lot, and definitely there is nothing
| about "enabling two-way communication between willing
| participants" that requires "make available a video on the
| screens of my contacts in a non-directed way" to be part of
| the offering.
|
| Signal _is not social media_. That is not its intention, nor
| its purpose, nor even its design. It is a messaging service.
| We already have a discovery feature in Signal: using your
| contacts, you can see who has Signal installed or not.
|
| This feels like bikeshedding to the max, because it is.
| theCrowing wrote:
| I guess its up to uoaei to define companies instead of
| themselves. They have a mission statement and othing more
| and that mission could be achieved as a social media
| company.
| fragmede wrote:
| > Signal is not social media.
|
| I mean, it is now since they just added a stories feature.
| Sorry that your view of the product doesn't align with
| Signal's.
|
| You're also using the word bikeshedding in a way unfamiliar
| to me. I use that word to mean intense debate about
| inconsequential changes that don't matter, like the right
| color for a bicycle shed. Which ofc is ludacris because
| there is no right or wrong color for a bicycle shed. In
| contrast to that, there are absolutely product decisions
| about the app that are material to its desired and
| undesired functionality. If signal decided to change the
| functionality of their product and stop encrypting texts,
| would discussion about that be bikeshedding? Why then, is
| this change in functionality not of similar concern?
| uoaei wrote:
| The important part of "bikeshedding" is the part about
| ignoring more important changes by focusing on trivial
| changes around the edges. If stories are more than
| trivial, I'd like to know how.
|
| Personally, I think call quality and server reliability
| with respect to private messages are more important for a
| service that is explicitly (and, until this change,
| exclusively) about _private messaging_ , especially
| considering recent outages.
|
| If Signal changed the encryption protocol to an insecure
| one, or simply removed it, then they are fundamentally
| altering the promise of the app vis a vis its core
| technology, ie, the essence of the provided service.
| Obviously that is analogous to the foundation of a house,
| not to the shed in the backyard.
| NdMAND wrote:
| > Let's not conflate "normalized" with "standard".
|
| Good point - I agree, should have phrased better.
|
| > We already have a discovery feature in Signal
|
| Another point I should have been more clear. I agree that
| contact discovery is ... well, discovery! I think what I
| meant is that right now you can only discover folks you
| already know (i.e.: have the number for) but you don't get
| recommendations.
|
| So yeah... I'd say that one of the major points
| distinguishing Signal from a Social Media (at least one of
| the definitions of) is the lack of recommendations of new
| people to follow or things to discover. Signal in that
| sense is a communication platform.
|
| [note I mean Signal the app not the company]
|
| > bikeshedding
|
| You mean if Signal is or isn't a Social media? Or it's run
| by the feds?
|
| I mean I replied to the above company with a serious
| comment but I thought the original one was not particularly
| useful to any discussion around Stories per se.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| nikolay wrote:
| Yet another reason to keep off this mess! First, crypto, now,
| WhatsApp features I don't care about!
| n8ta wrote:
| Removed SMS support and then added stories. Worried about
| signal's recent direction.
|
| Being able to interact with my remaining non-signal contacts was
| huge. Really going to miss it. In contrast they are now adding a
| feature I do not care about at all.
| Vinnl wrote:
| In case you haven't seen the technical motivation for removing
| SMS yet, see https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-
| removing-sms...
|
| It doesn't look like it has anything to do with Signal's
| direction in particular, but rather the changing environment
| they're in. (Specifically Android/Google making things harder.)
| ryeights wrote:
| You can still communicate with your SMS-using friends via the
| normal means... IMO mixing totally secure and totally insecure
| communications in the same app (the same list view even!) was
| always a poor idea.
| bogota wrote:
| I agree i don't see how you can knock signal in anyway for
| removing sms. What is the argument that this was some huge
| misstep i just don't see it
| dont__panic wrote:
| It's fine if you don't use SMS in the Signal app much. But
| a lot of us only downloaded Signal because it could replace
| the built-in Android SMS app. By dropping the SMS feature,
| we now have to use N+1 apps just to receive the occasional
| shipping notification or 2FA message.
|
| I'm glad that dropping SMS means nothing to you. But "i
| don't see how you can known signal in anyway" for dropping
| a feature sounds disingenuous.
| spijdar wrote:
| From an outsider/non-user's perspective, there are two angles
| to this: dropping the ability to use Signal as your default
| SMS handler does make the program much more secure, but it
| also means the barrier for getting new, casual users to
| onboard much harder. When it functions as an SMS app, you can
| get friends/family/whoever to install it and set it as
| default, and it will opportunistically use E2EE when
| available.
|
| It seems to me like this improves OPSEC for very privacy
| focused Signal users, but increases the barrier to entry for
| "casual" users who may not care enough to use a separate app
| for certain people, but may be convinced to use Signal for
| SMS.
|
| All that said, I'm not sure how any of that actually plays
| out in the real world, or if there were that many actual
| users doing just that.
| [deleted]
| anonporridge wrote:
| Don't forget integrating and pumping a shitty crypto altcoin,
| completely ignoring the vastly more legitimate and well trusted
| privacy coin monero while also potentially opening itself up to
| legal attack vectors for helping to facilitate money transfers,
| not just protect speech.
|
| Lots of reasons recently to develop deep distrust for Signal
| leadership, and start calling into question whether the app is
| still legitimately private.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Lots of reasons recently to develop deep distrust for
| Signal leadership, and start calling into question whether
| the app is still legitimately private.
|
| How about when Signal started storing people's contacts,
| their name, their photo, and their phone number in the cloud
| ignoring cries from their users that Signal should provide a
| way to opt out and bringing up security concerns, then
| refusing to update their privacy policy to reflect the new
| data collection meaning that for years now they've been
| outright lying to people about what data is being collected
| and how it's used. That was when I moved off the platform.
|
| If you want private/secure consider looking elsewhere.
| anonporridge wrote:
| > If you want private/secure consider looking elsewhere.
|
| Already on it.
|
| Just such a shame that after years of trying to convince
| friends and family to use signal, I now have to convince
| them to use something else.
|
| Oh well, that might just be the natural circle of life.
| autoexec wrote:
| I know, I was also a fan and had to go to friends and
| family and advise against using Signal after I'd told
| them years ago how great it was. You're right though,
| every great application seems the grow until it turns to
| trash and needs to replaced with something else. Very few
| apps escape that cycle. VLC is one of the good ones
| holding out.
| barbs wrote:
| Do you have sources for the contact upload and privacy
| policy stuff?
| autoexec wrote:
| https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-
| secu...
|
| They started storing user data in the cloud and never
| updated their privacy policy even though it's been
| brought to their attention.
| (https://community.signalusers.org/t/can-signal-please-
| update...)
|
| The very first line of their privacy policy reads:
| "Signal is designed to never collect or store any
| sensitive information" which is a total lie. For someone
| like a human rights activist or a whistleblower a list of
| all their Signal contacts is absolutely "sensitive
| information". It really used to be true that they didn't
| collect and store anything, but it hasn't been the case
| now for years!
|
| If this is the first time you're hearing about the data
| Signal is collecting and storing in the cloud that should
| tell you all you need to know about how much they can be
| trusted.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| This removed-sms-without-reason is going to be a myth that
| persists for a while
|
| > RCS is coming, and it doesn't play well with Signal.... and
| Signal can't add RCS support because there's no RCS API on
| Android. Honestly, the days of any third-party SMS app are
| numbered.
|
| https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-removing-sms...
| smbullet wrote:
| That reason might be a nice scapegoat that they invented
| after criticism because it's mentioned nowhere in their
| official announcement.
|
| >There are three big reasons why we're removing SMS support
| for the Android app now: prioritizing security and privacy,
| ensuring people aren't hit with unexpected messaging bills,
| and creating a clear and intelligible user experience for
| anyone sending messages on Signal.
|
| https://signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/
|
| So I think this "myth" will probably persist for a while.
| TrueDuality wrote:
| While this is true, RCS isn't here yet and when it is there
| likely will be APIs for it. The argument that there aren't
| APIs for a feature that isn't present isn't a valid one in my
| book.
| aendruk wrote:
| It would help to dispel that "myth" if _Our reasoning: Why
| we're removing SMS support_ mentioned RCS at all.
| drcongo wrote:
| Oh cool, "stories" are here to ruin yet another app. What is this
| obsession all about?
| endorphine wrote:
| Not sure why you're downvoted but I'd love to know the answer
| to this.
| mgbmtl wrote:
| I can imagine it would be a useful alternative to having a bunch
| of group-chats for people who want to share baby/cat/travel
| photos. And I can disable it. Win-win.
| petre wrote:
| The chat/stories menu bar takes too much screen real estate. So
| I've disabled it.
| KerryJones wrote:
| "Give the people what they want" feels like a slap in the face
| after the decision to remove SMS
| autoexec wrote:
| And after ignoring all the people who were begging them to
| provide a means to opt of having their data permanently stored
| in the cloud.
|
| I'm glad they're giving consideration to people here, but
| forcing this change on people won't cost them as much as
| forcing people to the cloud and dropping SMS support did.
| midislack wrote:
| Do I still need to give them my phone number though?
| beckingz wrote:
| Signal has demonstrated product-death (loss of cohesive product
| vision), what do we use next?
| [deleted]
| zaik wrote:
| Internet standards like IRC or XMPP? Investing in those instead
| of walled gardens was the right choice to begin with.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| My vote is Matrix. I already bridge mine to Signal anyway.
| bvinc wrote:
| Is this one step closer towards signal being TikTok?
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| I was so annoyed when I saw this. Luckily you can deactivate it.
| I've done so, moving on with my life. Can't believe how much I
| hate modern design pet-peeves and features... mozilla VPN app
| recently switched to having a menu bar at the bottom for 'home'
| (default view), 'messages' (update notifications and crap) and
| 'settings'... because this is how to do it now... of course it
| has fancy rounded corners... sigh...
|
| For all the people still complaining about the SMS thing: I get
| it, at the same time, I don't. When I first installed Signal I
| was surprised and annoyed it wanted to be my default SMS app.
| What does SMS have to do with encrypted messaging? I immediately
| saw people would use Signal, send SMS, and assume they were
| securely messaging. Now Google is pushing
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services which
| Signal can't implement.
|
| The official announcement back then did not provide enough
| context, this here does
| https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-removing-sms...
|
| Are they supposed to 'keep' people esp non-techies from using RCS
| 'by default' and make them use SMS? The app that cares so deeply
| about encrypted communication?
|
| My thinking: integrating SMS into Signal was a dubious move to
| aid adoption. I could make the reasonable argument it should've
| never been done. With the arrival of RCS and SMS falling by the
| wayside more and more, it just can't be justified any further.
|
| Sucks for adoption? Maybe. But honestly, Signal can't want people
| to use SMS, right?
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| I think menus are moving to the bottom because phones are so
| big now - that's where your thumbs are. Probably the only
| reason phones ever had menus at the top is because they were
| just copying desktop app UI.
| screamingninja wrote:
| > Are they supposed to 'keep' people esp non-techies from using
| RCS 'by default' and make them use SMS? The app that cares so
| deeply about encrypted communication?
|
| While I agree with most of what you said, it appears you are
| implying that RCS provides a security guarantee somehow that
| Signal is impeding. RCS is badly fragmented, mostly not E2E
| (except Google private E2E extension), and does not have
| Apple's buy in. Signal does clearly indicate that SMS chats are
| not secure.
|
| Signal originated as ChatSecure- the encrypted SMS app.
| neumann wrote:
| Historically, Signal (then known as Text Secure) was encrypting
| vanilla SMS between users! If you got rid of the app and
| somebody texted you through it you would get an encrypted chat!
| Then they moved away from sms, partly to allow for more
| anonymity (i think) from metadata and a better experience. So
| the sms capabilities are more historical than a design choice
| to do both.
| thebetatester wrote:
| I won't be using this. You know what I do use on Signal, SMS. But
| apparently useful things don't make a good Gen-Z app.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I don't get this at all. If all you're using Signal for is SMS,
| why not just switch to a good SMS app?
| thebetatester wrote:
| Why use multiple apps to text people? I don't us FB
| messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, or any of that. I use Signal.
| Signal lets me send a message to ANYONE else with a phone
| number protocol agnostic. That's very useful, especially when
| I'm talking to committed iMessage users.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I get you but it feels like a weird hill to die on.
| Questionable why SMS support was added to Signal in the
| first place but removing it makes sense in the context of
| where they want to take Signal (e.g. usernames).
| jerry1979 wrote:
| Anyone know of a fork of signal that disables this keeps the SMS
| feature?
| thefz wrote:
| Nobody is using SMS outside the US.
| absoflutely wrote:
| Okay, well a lot of people actually live in the US.
| shishy wrote:
| You can just go into settings and turn it off...
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| Not likely to happen. While it's OSS, there's still a central
| Signal backend, and they don't like clients other than their
| own to connect to it. Any fork would eventually need to have
| their own backend, and now you're basically no longer using
| Signal since you won't be able to communicate with anybody else
| not using yours.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Federated Signal servers!!!
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| I think that's called Matrix and we already have that.
|
| Anyway, good luck getting Signal to federate with you until
| you have enough of a user base that they're losing users to
| your backend. They have zero reason to want to do this, and
| it introduces some privacy issues (what if your server
| doesn't respect deletions, etc?).
| jcul wrote:
| There is a fork called "Molly" that has been around for a
| long time.
|
| I haven't used but it is supposed to be a hardened version of
| signal.
|
| Not that it supports SMS, but it _is_ a fork that uses
| Signal's servers.
| autoexec wrote:
| Silence. It's not very polished, but it's basically old signal.
| tlhunter wrote:
| Lose SMS, gain Stories. Such a shame.
| tao_oat wrote:
| My gut reaction to this was disappointment that Signal is working
| on yet another not-messaging feature a la their crypto
| integration... But the longer I think about it, the more positive
| I feel. I actually enjoyed using stories on other social media
| platforms before I left them. The idea of something similar, but
| end-to-end encrypted, is actually exciting!
| bogota wrote:
| The more useful signal becomes to the non tech crowd the better
| for everyone. Options are good and they are largely competing
| with WhatsApp although they have tiny market penetration right
| now
| agundy wrote:
| They recently announced they are removing Sms support on
| Android which feels vastly more useful for the non-tech
| crowd.
| grapescheesee wrote:
| I really hope they change course, and keep SMS. That is the
| single best feature of the android App. They will lose a
| lot of people if they don't.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I imagine it's a lot of hassle to maintain and outside of
| the US SMS is basically as dead as landline phones. They
| probably consulted their usage statistics when they made
| that decision.
| Vinnl wrote:
| They kinda were forced to by Android limiting what they can
| do: https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-
| removing-sms...
| dont__panic wrote:
| I wish they would improve the app UI instead of focusing on
| features like this. Compared to other apps I use regularly,
| Signal feels kind of clunky -- the share dialog takes _forever_
| to load from another app compared to Telegram or Messages. The
| app feels like it 's harassing me every single day to update.
| On open, the app often takes a few seconds of loading in my
| chats. Makes me wonder what core userbase Signal thinks cares
| about Stories more than a functional app. Half the reason I
| started using Telegram a decade ago was simply because it was
| faster than most other apps!
| daqnal wrote:
| From my experiences, Signal has the cleanest, most functional
| UX and design out of nearly all my apps. I have a mid-range
| Pixel 4a running CalyxOS and it works without hiccups. Not
| sure why yours is so slow.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Agreed. Android version is slim, and just several days ago
| I paired up with the Windows desktop version - a UI to die
| for. So happy I got several people to a) drop facebook and
| b) contact me with/ reply to me on signal (I don't use
| Whatsapp); and they've done the same with others. Both my
| kids (under 20) use signal more and more, especially with
| their new friends at a new school.
|
| Aside: I asked - they, and their friends, don't give an f
| about twitter.
| dont__panic wrote:
| I am using an absolutely ancient phone (2016 iphone SE)
| that's perpetually in low power mode, so it's possible that
| this isn't a big problem for other iOS users. It's also
| rather slow on my mac, but I have noticed that my partner's
| 4a runs it smoothly.
| NavinF wrote:
| That would explain it.
| yunohn wrote:
| I love HN threads where the complainer is knowingly using
| an old device on power mode, while complaining about
| performance... all while the responder is using a custom
| de-googled niche ROM and claiming somehow it works
| flawlessly.
|
| I always wonder how non-HNers use such software, if even
| the dedicated people are struggling.
| boraoztunc wrote:
| Same here, moved to Telegram. Still use Signal though (my
| mother still contacts me there) but the product needs work.
| robszumski wrote:
| +1 on the update harassment. Are these critical security bugs
| or random updates!? You never know.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Exactly. I'm glad they update the app regularly, but the
| giant popup banner is an aggressive way of advertising
| that.
| site-packages1 wrote:
| I had the same thought process. I still use Instagram, but only
| post stories. It's fun and less pressure than posts, and get to
| share fun and irreverent things with friends.
| gnarbarian wrote:
| I agree. I feel the same way about signal payments. signal has
| enough critical mass to start expanding to other areas that
| could benefit from privacy.
| fitblipper wrote:
| I was worried about sharing broadly and leaking info from 1
| contact to another, but it seems like the Signal team did all the
| right things here.
|
| When you create a story you can make it a group story or not.
|
| If you do not make it a group story, reactions and replies to
| stories get sent to you over your 1:1 chats and not shared across
| other recipients of the story.
|
| If you make it a group story, and share it with multiple groups
| each group receives their own copy of the story and replies and
| reactions can only be viewed by others in the same group.
|
| After having been burned SO OFTEN by other social platforms
| embarrassingly notifying others when I did something I thought
| was a passive post, or leaking information from 1 of my subgroups
| with another I was very worried that would happen here, but great
| job signal team!
|
| The only awkward part that I've noticed so far is if I have a
| contact in 2 groups that I create 2 group stories with, they now
| have 2 identical stories show up on their story board. It makes
| sense and I think the UI clearly indicates for which group
| replies and reactions to each story it would go to which is
| probably the safest (best?) solution, but I could see that
| getting a little annoying if I share multiple groups with a
| frequent story poster.
| stavros wrote:
| It seems to me that, under the hood, stories are implemented as
| simple messages. To publish a story to 200 friends, you just
| send 200 photo messages to them. Group stories are a group
| message (and hence separate per group), which is a very good
| abstraction.
| kibwen wrote:
| I'm still of the opinion that encrypted private group chats are
| an impossible UX problem (1:1 chat is fine). But if I were to
| trust anyone to find a way to do it properly, it would be
| Signal.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| What makes it impossible? Naively I would think that if you
| have a secure 1:1 communication protocol, then you can send
| N*(1:1) secure messages to a group of N people. To solve the
| "fake group message" problem where an adversarial member of
| the group sends different messages to different members of
| the group, or delays the message to some members, the
| protocol could simply allow for a 2nd level "vouch" message
| to be sent, such that Alice sends the message to Bob, Alice
| sends the message to Charlie, Charlie messages Bob a receipt
| with the receive time and a hash of the chat log, and Bob
| messages Charlie a receipt with the receive time and a hash
| of the chat log. If the hashes don't match, or the receive
| time is unacceptably different, then you highlight the
| message as suspect.
|
| Sure, it takes N^2+N messages, but that's not exactly a
| massive overhead for text. Multimedia takes N times as much
| bandwidth as the 1-server, server-many model for the sender,
| but otherwise isn't terrible.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Am I in a bubble and these features are, in fact, widely used on
| WhatsApp?
|
| I'm in groups with a whole lot of other people including a few
| who keep up with modern social media stuff, use TikTok, use
| Instagram, et c., and zero of them use the Status feature or
| Stories or anything but messaging. For us it's just ICQ/text with
| better media embedding (but still really bad, somehow). Some of
| us regularly use similar features, but _only_ on other platforms,
| never on WhatsApp.
|
| Is that unusual, and these are in fact much-beloved features by a
| good chunk of the WhatsApp user-base?
| [deleted]
| jvdvegt wrote:
| I'm using WhatsApp everyday, but have never encountered anybody
| using stories (I can't even find it in WhatsApp on Android, is
| it the camera-ocon in the top-left?)
| mcjiggerlog wrote:
| It's the "status" tab.
| lelandfe wrote:
| None of the various Europeans I met at a hostel last year use
| it. So that's a random sample of people from a dozen or so
| countries.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Can't speak for the world but WhatsApp Statuses (stories) are
| used by many many people in East Africa. It is basically what
| keeps me coming back to WhatsApp over Signal so I am quite
| thrilled to see Signal now have them. Maybe that will shift
| more people over.
| sagischwarz wrote:
| A lot of people around me in Germany from all ages and bubbles
| use this feature in WhatsApp as if it were some kind of
| Instagram. I see multiple status updates every day.
| gambiting wrote:
| Wait, what feature is this? Me and all my friends and family
| use WhatsApp and I've never seen anything like this.
| sagischwarz wrote:
| See https://faq.whatsapp.com/643144237275579/?helpref=platf
| orm_s...
| kzrdude wrote:
| Well, I don't have enough friends to give you good statistics,
| but there exists users of that feature on whatsapp.
| jacooper wrote:
| The problem with signal is its a ghost land.
|
| Many people signed up after the new WhatsApp T&S debacle, but
| Facebook played it like a boss by delaying the change and
| draining the news cycle and they won.
|
| Almost no body uses signal, I have chat group of my friends on
| signal, and I'm really thinking of moving it to WhatsApp, so they
| actually see the messages instead of it being 20 messages from me
| and 1 from the others.
|
| Its not that they don't have signal installed, they just never
| open it, I use it as a video/voice call app and it works well,
| but messages? Its a PITA to get people to actually read them,
| especially since many of them are complaining of notifications
| not working.
|
| I like the stories feature, especially because its totally
| encrypted, but its basically useless as almost no one in my
| social circle uses Signal.
| rchaud wrote:
| I was still using Signal for SMS, and they announced they'd be
| removing that. So it's gone from my phone.
|
| Everybody wants to be Telegram it seems.
| jacooper wrote:
| I don't understand what Signal had to do SMS.
|
| its mainly a Secure messaging app not an SMS client
|
| And Telegram is the worst in terms of security and privacy.
| aendruk wrote:
| It was analogous to the "Messages" app that iPhones have--a
| single, zero-decision place to go for texting, that
| opportunistically upgrades privacy without the user having
| to understand anything.
| [deleted]
| subpixel wrote:
| "Give the people what they want"
|
| At least they realize we want a way to avoid stories.
| [deleted]
| oxff wrote:
| Is everything just merging into the same BorgBlopApp?
| [deleted]
| fluidcruft wrote:
| I actually like the idea of Stories (vs say a giant group text),
| but I don't think 24 hours is workable for the people I Signal
| with because we're not in Signal routinely enough and everything
| will just delete before anyone sees it. If it were configurable
| I'd probably set it to a week or a month. Actually, I don't know
| why they would fix the time at 24hrs. We've always been able to
| set the time period for disappearing messages.
| clankyclanker wrote:
| Is that 24h after receipt, or 24h after opening? I believe
| their text messages use the latter system and would expect the
| video ones to do the same.
| Zak wrote:
| > _I don 't know why they would fix the time at 24hrs._
|
| To use fear of missing out to cause people to check the app at
| least a couple times a day. It's an engagement hack, and the
| main reason I dislike this feature wherever it appears.
| g_sch wrote:
| I suppose it does function as an engagement hack, but I like
| ephemeral messaging like this because it is low-stakes and I
| often don't care strongly whether any individual sees my post
| or not. If I did care, I'd simply send them a message
| directly! So at least in this sense, the short timeframe is a
| feature that defines the medium for me.
|
| Of course, you could allow customization of the time
| interval, but that adds another layer of complexity, and
| other platforms that use stories have already pretty much
| standardized on a timeframe of 24h, so it's easier for
| platform newcomers to understand.
| fortylove wrote:
| It's been interesting to watch the Signal arc. From tech darling
| to "why do they think I want this" / "time to move on to what's
| next".
| rafram wrote:
| You would switch to a new, incompatible messaging app because
| the one you use adds a single feature that you don't personally
| want to use?
| jcul wrote:
| Perhaps more due to frustration at prioritization of features
| that subjectively seem less important than some other desired
| feature?
|
| For example, I would like to be able to log into signal from
| multiple devices, which currently isn't possible.
|
| So, I could imagine switching to something like telegram
| (even though less secure) or matrix (even though a little
| trickier for non tech users), both of which allow me to do
| this.
|
| Personally though, I'm still using signal, donating, and have
| converted a few people, I'm just speculating here.
| Zachsa999 wrote:
| Hmm, I won't use it, but I can't. It's broken on my Samsung s20
| fe. The tutorial crashes the app.
| tfsh wrote:
| Group-chat specific stories would be an interesting idea. What I
| dislike about social media is the wide-reaching effects, being
| able to constrain this to a close circle of friends (like what G+
| alluded) to could catch on.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| Welcome feature, as hopefully it increases adoption, but seems
| like Signal is going the wrong direction. Getting feature like
| stories right and picked up is hard. You need to do a lot of
| analytics and UX testing. Signal team is not set up for this.
| This something, that is nice to have and can be iterated on until
| a sweet spot found, but in the meantime Signal is missing some
| important features directly related to it core mission: secure
| communication: 1. support multiple phone numbers 2. support
| usernames without phone number 3. ios message export 4. Hidden
| chats(not visible unless a secret combination is entered) - this
| is really necessary, because oppressive regimes don't crack your
| encrypted, they detain and ask you to unlock your phone and show
| your message history. 5. Call quality between the US callers is
| pretty good. But in Europe it wasn't as smooth for me. 6. Offline
| mode - when Internet isn't available. Either using local servers
| or mesh networks. This is a massive change, but it would truly
| boost Signal resilience.
| alexb_ wrote:
| What the fuck happened with Signal? Why did we remove SMS (step 1
| into "only criminals use this app") and then start adding stuff
| that has absolutely nothing at all to do with messaging? Did a
| federal agent start running the show with the sole mission of
| destroying the entire app?
| [deleted]
| NdMAND wrote:
| Why did we remove SMS (step 1 into "only criminals use this
| app") and then start adding stuff that has absolutely nothing
| at all to do with messaging?
|
| I think that "only criminals use this app" is always going to
| be used on anything that uses encryption by folks that are
| against encryption (usually governments for some reasons...).
| SMS or not is always going to be there. I don't think that
| having secure communication apps intentionally offer insecure
| communication is the right way to solve this. SMS was a legacy
| feature for Signal that just got removed now.
|
| > adding stuff that has absolutely nothing at all to do with
| messaging?
|
| Stories?
|
| > Did a federal agent start running the show with the sole
| mission of destroying the entire app?
|
| I just replied to another similar comment, not sure if it's the
| same person or not... but then I'd say...
|
| Use Telegram! It's unencrypted by default! Use WhatsApp -
| unfortunately encrypted by default, but at least Meta will
| collect so much more metadata than you can keep track for. Use
| iMessage - It will upload your encrypted chat and the
| decryption key to Apple servers for you.
|
| My point saying "it's the feds running it" without proof like
| that is not the most constructive conversation - Signal is by
| all accounts one of the most secure and private (not
| necessarily the same as anonymous) messaging apps out there
| with no clear competitors at the same level of privacy and
| security.
| alexb_ wrote:
| >Use Telegram! It's unencrypted by default!
|
| You mean the messaging service with no SMS support and an
| assumption that criminals are the main users?
|
| Signal was great because it gave encrypted messaging to
| people who didn't know they needed it. When you take away SMS
| support, the only people who use it are people who _know_
| they need it.
| NanoWar wrote:
| I am a happy user of WhatsApp's Status and am actually really
| looking forward to Signals take!
| baby wrote:
| I really feel like the best Signal today is Whatsapp. It
| implements almost the same protocol and is 1) super lean and 2)
| everyone already has it.
| freeqaz wrote:
| WhatsApp is completely unusable unless you grant it access to
| your contacts though. That's my biggest issue with it -- I
| don't want to hand over my data to FaceBook.
| LtWorf wrote:
| whatsapp claims to be secure... nobody knows.
|
| It's not like that with signal.
| pabl8k wrote:
| The reason it's not the "best Signal" is that WhatsApp doesn't
| have reproducible builds or any guarantees that e2e isn't
| subverted on the client side or removed entirely. And it's run
| by a company with incentives that are misaligned to e2e
| encryption and a history of product updates that don't respect
| the privacy or preferences of the end user.
| e12e wrote:
| Otoh, maybe a small company like signal is easier to
| completely subvert by Cia, nsa, Mossad than meta is?
| nicce wrote:
| It is not the same. WhatsApp (and Meta) collects all the
| metadata, which might be worse than the message contents
| itself. It is just their marketing, it is not very private
| after all.
| [deleted]
| spidersouris wrote:
| I have never understood all the song and dance about stories. I
| can see how they differ from simple posts in the sense that they
| can be interactive and last only last some time before
| disappearing (and even then, it seems the concept was extended by
| allowing permanent stories), but I just don't see the appeal. It
| forces me to check another section of the app to stay up to date
| with things, while I could just check classic posts. There's
| nothing technically impossible in improving classic posts and
| adding stories-like features to them, but it seems the main goal
| is to fully leverage fullscreen media and autoplay in order to
| retain users as much as possible in the app.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Does Signal have a "classic posts" feature I don't know about?
| broahmed wrote:
| I love how Signal (and WhatsApp adopting Signal's protocol) made
| privacy easy for the general public and technically inclined
| alike. Privacy will never be the default until it's made easy.
|
| I'm guessing some folks won't like use feature because it's too
| "social media-y" (myself likely included) but as they say in the
| post:
|
| - You can turn the feature off and you won't see other people's
| stories
|
| - You can choose the audience and the max you can share it with
| is with Signal users in your contacts list
|
| Thank you Signal team for giving the general public what they
| want and making it private.
| nicce wrote:
| > I love how Signal (and WhatsApp adopting Signal's protocol)
| made privacy easy for the general public and technically
| inclined alike. Privacy will never be the default until it's
| made easy.
|
| WhatsApp did not really adapt it in privacy mind, to be fair.
| All metadata is unencrypted.
|
| Meta harvests your contact information, intervals and time when
| you message specific persons. Often, this information is more
| interesting than the message content itself.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Perhaps that's the real reason they renamed to Meta. Not for
| the meta _verse_ , but because of their incredible volume of
| meta _data_.
| krono wrote:
| > All metadata is unencrypted
|
| And all the rest of the data too, for all intents and
| purposes.
|
| After all it is Meta that provides the keys, operates the
| network, and controls the closed source apps. Also, it is
| precisely Meta's type of behaviour that warrants encrypting
| personal data in the first place.
| Calvin02 wrote:
| I don't think that's accurate.
|
| Pretty sure both work the same way regarding metadata. Think
| about it: if Signal didn't know that A was messaging B, how
| would they route that message to B's phone? A has to be able
| to find B's ip address someway. B can't broadcast its ip
| address to all the Signal users -- that would be a huge
| security hole.
|
| It probably works like this: 1) A sends encrypted message +
| B's phone number to the server 2) server looks up the ip
| address for B's phone number 3) server routes the message
| there.
|
| Also, both WhatsApp and Signal hash the contacts data the
| same way. Signal does seem to go a bit further, however.
|
| WhatsApp's implementation:
| https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/information-for-people-who-
| do... Signal's implementation:
| https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
| josh2600 wrote:
| https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/
|
| Worth reading.
| nicce wrote:
| WhatsApp contact uplod mechanism continues here [1].
|
| It means, that if the contact list contains numbers which
| have not accepted WhatsApp ToS, their content is stored
| only as hash. When the user starts using WhatsApp, their
| number and hash is being mapped.
|
| Vaguely described as
|
| > Each cryptographic hash value is stored on WhatsApp's
| servers, linked to the WhatsApp users who uploaded the
| corresponding phone numbers before they were hashed so that
| we can more efficiently connect you with these contacts
| when they join WhatsApp.
|
| Which means that WhatsApp knows the numbers of the WhatsApp
| users, and how they interact together.
|
| Signal does not know numbers or how these contatcs
| interact.
|
| It is described here [2]. Number is only needed for
| creating the unique hash. Server knows only the recipient,
| not the sender.
|
| [1]: https://faq.whatsapp.com/423109552047857/?locale=en_US
| &refsr...
|
| [2]: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/
| topdancing wrote:
| > Signal does not know numbers or how these contatcs
| interact.
|
| > It is described here [2]. Number is only needed for
| creating the unique hash. Server knows only the
| recipient, not the sender.
|
| Signal does know everyone's numbers as everybody is
| logged into a Signal account on the server end (this is
| how your client fetches messages for your number). That
| same account and IP are also used when you send a
| message.
|
| On top of that fact, sealed sender has been known to be
| broken for some time now: https://www.ndss-
| symposium.org/ndss-paper/improving-signals-...
| pvg wrote:
| _Pretty sure both work the same way regarding metadata._
|
| They don't, that's covered pretty extensively in the many
| technical writeups of various Signal features. It's one of
| the main value propositions of Signal, that it doesn't work
| like most secure messengers especially when it comes to
| metadata.
| quonn wrote:
| The server does not really store IPs, since mobile phones
| are likely behind CGNAT.
|
| In theory, B could publish a new public key as identity per
| target user.
|
| I see two main problems: First, push notifications do
| require the server to actually identify the user and second
| efficiency: The client would like to maintain a single long
| connection instead of many short lived requests with
| pseudonyms.
|
| Of course there would still be some timing patterns ...
| jhoechtl wrote:
| > Think about it: if Signal didn't know that A was
| messaging B, how would they route that message to B's
| phone?
|
| There is no need for signal to know because their servers
| are not involved to transport the message but only ip
| routing infrastructure in between and of course the two
| parties. That's P2P
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| I wish they would figure out how to have one account on multiple
| devices. The work around now is using groups, but that's kludgy.
| I use Signal to chat with friends and family. I want to be able
| to switch between personal and work phone and my conversations go
| with me. Again, groups are a work around, but I'd rather
| something better.
|
| I feel like this should be a priority over more features because
| it's been asked for for ages and they say they're working on it.
| daveidol wrote:
| It's so frustrating to see every single app out there shamelessly
| copying this feature from Snapchat.
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| Why would they have any shame? Snapchat is a horrible app that
| is only intuitive if you're 13 years old.
| somehnacct3757 wrote:
| That's by design and your comment is high praise
|
| https://www.figma.com/blog/did-snapchat-succeed-because-
| of-i...
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| Hahaha, you're kind of right. The app peaked in popularity
| when I was in high school, so of course I used it with
| everyone else. I can't stand it now, though.
| advisedwang wrote:
| I like it when good ideas spread and are widely adopted.
| sigmar wrote:
| I'm curious how it encrypts. I've got 500 "Signal connections"...
| Does it do them all at once (with some kind of "group key" like
| in group chat) and in a way that can be decrypted by any of the
| individual keys? Can't find any details on github or the official
| forum...
| iueotnmunto wrote:
| I've always thought creating a shared key which rotates as soon
| as a single individual is added or removed is smart. There are
| security implications related to whose decryption key leaked,
| not sure if that's a legitimate threat model for almost any
| scenario though.
| zppln wrote:
| I never asked for this.
| electrona wrote:
| I had to leave Signal when they dropped SMS support.
| Zak wrote:
| Why? Was your device so constrained in terms of storage or
| memory that you couldn't have both Signal and an SMS app
| installed?
| mikece wrote:
| I don't like this: it seems like Signal wants to morph into a
| social network rather than a secure messaging platform. I predict
| the next major features will be unencrypted public groups and API
| messaging access like Telegram has.
| clnq wrote:
| I'm not against social media fundamentally, I'm against the
| lack of privacy and emotional exploitation as means to sell
| more ads on social media. Social media could be done solely in
| the interest of its users, and I think that could be fantastic.
| So far, Signal has a reputation good enough to make me
| optimistic about it adding social network features.
|
| I definitely do not expect Signal to drop encryption by default
| in any feature though. That's their fundamental value.
| pavon wrote:
| I don't see how Signal adding features that shift
| communications from insecure venues to private encrypted
| channels would lead you to think they are abandoning privacy.
| skyyler wrote:
| Would you rather live in a world where Signal is laser focused
| on secure messaging to the point where no one uses it? Telegram
| is growing rapidly because it's adopting social media
| paradigms. I use both, and I wish I only used Signal.
| hadlock wrote:
| About once a week I get a notification that random person X I
| haven't talked to in a decade is now on signal. About two
| months ago the super at my old apartment building got on
| signal and I got a notification. My late coworker's phone
| number finally got recycled and the new person using it is on
| signal too. They appear to be reaching critical mass.
|
| Still really mad about them dropping SMS support. I'll be
| deleting it when that happens.
| uoaei wrote:
| I really don't understand the qualms with SMS support. SMS
| was never secure, and it certainly doesn't become more
| secure when you push it through a pass-through on one app
| or another. There is nothing you can do to SMS to make it
| more secure except to send encrypted strings: but then you
| have the same problem of sharing secrets, etc. that
| requires a separate app to manage anyway.
| mr_mitm wrote:
| It means I need an extra app now. Signal replaced my SMS
| app. I'm not going to stop using SMS completely, so if
| Signal drops it I need to use one more app.
| uoaei wrote:
| One comes preinstalled with every major mobile OS...
| hadlock wrote:
| Because I already have an encrypted messaging app. It's
| called Whatsapp. This bumps up to E2E encrypted if both
| people using "SMS" have signal installed. Now this is
| just an alternative to WhatsApp. I will just keep using
| WhatsApp.
| soperj wrote:
| Because you can use it as your only messaging app if it
| has SMS. You can't if it doesn't.
| godelski wrote:
| > About once a week I get a notification that random person
| X I haven't talked to in a decade is now on signal.
|
| Settings > Notifications > Notify when... > turn off
| "Contact joins Signal"
| nimbius wrote:
| same. unless Signal has public metrics to suggest its
| reached a real critical mass, the lack of basic SMS
| functionality kills the app for me.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > same. unless Signal has public metrics to suggest its
| reached a real critical mass, the lack of basic SMS
| functionality kills the app for me.
|
| Did its SMS feature support encryption somehow? Because
| sounds like a bad idea to include unencrypted messaging
| in a secure app: it's a giant footgun.
| snotrockets wrote:
| Telegram is an interesting comparison, because it isn't
| focused on security at all: it's a social network delivered
| through an app that looks like a messaging app.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| I just want to share some stories with friends in my contact
| list. On Signal you don't have "followers", just people you are
| in contact with. This is an unobtrusive way to for example
| share something interesting, or some event happening near you
| and so on.
| [deleted]
| millyleaves wrote:
| I too am not a fan of such a move. However, their goal is to
| increase usage rates among the mainstream audience hence why
| such a feature is being introducing, just like stickers back in
| Dec 2019.
|
| Though I'm not sure how many will actually use Stories.
| WhatsApp has something similar as well but I have never seen
| anyone among my contacts use it
| hedora wrote:
| I wish they would enable backup + moving between iOS and Android.
|
| I'd move to a forked client that supported that, TOS be damned.
|
| Messages that self-delete after 24 hours is the opposite of what
| I want.
| m12k wrote:
| I'm glad to see the app is actively being worked on, even if the
| changes aren't ones I care about personally. Here's my wishlist
| for Signal:
|
| - Edit previously sent messages like Telegram, Discord and Slack
| lets you do. I'm so damn tired of a big ugly "This message was
| deleted" if I try to fix a typo/DYAC
|
| - A better way to sync up clients, so when I log in on a computer
| and verify with my phone, it lets me sync over some or all of my
| message history.
|
| - A way to set the expiry time for your sessions. I appreciate
| that they want you to not stay logged in forever if you lose or
| forget a computer, but I'm so damn tired of having to re-log in
| on my desktop pretty much every time I try to use Signal there.
|
| - Faster message import when starting desktop clients. Or smarter
| import - e.g. prioritize the top of the chats list and throw the
| rest on a background queue instead of hanging the UI until it's
| done.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-07 23:00 UTC)