in reply to Daniel Gultsch

well, we appreciate Signal trying to make a difference with its public weight ahead of the oct14 chat control vote. Yes, Signal is centralized and running on gafam servers but it also was a key leading effort to make e2ee UX widely available ... and that is fundamentally threatened by #chatcontrol. Federated #xmpp or #email servers do not help against legislation that aims at apps and clients. This is a time to put all of our joint weight against chatcontrol, not gamble for exceptions.
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

@delta I am not sure to understand your argument well. So I understand (perhaps not correctly) the idea of ​​this time with #ChatControl is that the messages are scanned on the client's side, and before that the infrastructure does not matter. I will avoid that restriction but the vast majority of people do not do it. If they do not scan my device they will do it in the person with whom I communicate. It would be a lost battle.
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

The fight is to not loose the rights older generations fought for. Everything else is arrogance. Thinking you can out smart authoritarian shifts and attacking voices fighting this is really blind sighted. You may not like signals public stunts, but attacking them for using their weight to lobby against chat control is very divisive. In unity we can be strong, singled out we will get ran over. This is not about xmpp vs signal. This is liberty vs dystopia.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to obsoleszenz

@obsoleszenz @delta Political action is important. I was on the streets protesting against the first data retention (Vorratsdatenspeicherung) laws 20 years ago. However we also need a Plan B. "Leaving Europe" is either an empty threat or not helpful at all to the people living here.
People need to know that they can rely on Jabber/XMPP in general and #Conversations_im in particular to stay around no matter what.