Comment on matrix is cooked

• drspod@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  This attitude has worked so well for allowing the current crop of tech billionaires to grow and cement their influence over the entire world. If people would just stop using their platforms when they hear the CEO’s batshit views then they would be nobodies.

  source

  • unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The SimpleX Chat is AGPL. If the founder is problematic, one could fork it and avoid reinventing what has already been made.

    source

    • drspod@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      go on then

      source
• ideonek@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Are you asking if I insist that the minds behind my secure private chat have some moral standing and common sense? One would hope so. I wouldn't trust encryption made by anti-vaxer more than I would trust a plane put tougher by flat-earther. I don't want to be the hero of the next leopard eat my face song.

  source

  • unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I wouldn’t trust encryption made by anti-vaxer more than…

    Important to note: SimpleX Chat has gone through two security audits.

    source
  • vga@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I wouldn’t trust encryption made by anti-vaxer

    My understanding of encryption is that the point is that you don’t have to trust the people doing it. You just have to trust the security researchers that proved that the algorithms/protocols work.

    Also, my understanding of people is that what they look like right now, today, is no evidence for what kind of people they really are.

    source

    • astute@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s a tricky line. On one hand, I agree that you don’t need to trust the person—just the code and the cryptographic model. But at the same time, if the dev is actively pushing misinformation or has a history of hostility toward marginalized groups, it erodes my confidence in their ethical choices about security and privacy. Trust isn’t just technical.

      source
    • ideonek@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      On the other hand, when people show they who they really are... you should believe them. There are some views that are either ignorant or bad will. I think evidence of those is a reasonable deal-breaker. And it's perfectly ok if you have your line drown somewhere else as well.

      source
    • unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      …that proved that the algorithms/protocols work.

      You can use a perfect algorithm and still be insecure because the implementation was bad. You are trusting the SimpleX Chat devs to a degree.

      source
• Lazycog@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Views that seriously harm or endanger other people are dangerous.

  If the founder would have opposing views in e.g. should we narrow down the car roads in cities and widen the pedestrian walks - ok. I think there’s a lot to this question, I think pedestrian walks should be wider, cars are dangerous, etc. But this is not as dangerous as:

  “Do you deny scientific evidence that COVID is real and a real danger to a lot of humans”

  source