On Sb, 26 iun 21, 07:41:51, Dan Ritter wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > Sure. In my opinion, a communication service that does not > federate with open-source clients and servers is a proprietary > service, even if it is free-gratis to use. The owner of that > service can do whatever they want, and nothing short of > government regulation can or will prevent them.
The legal rights and obligations of service providers are completely orthogonal to the software and protocols they are using. The operator of a mail server (as an example of open protocol) can just as well sell or abuse your private communication (didn't this thread start out about Gmail?). It's up to the users to vote with their feet (or wallet for paid services). > Monopolies are always bad; it's just that sometimes they are economically > worth having when very tightly regulated. > > That's an opinion. Monopolies can also be countered by viable alternatives and in my experience the only reasonable alternative to WhatsApp is Signal. That's also an opinion. > > Or could you explain why Matrix (which as far as I know is already both > > federated and open to any client) is not enough? > > Not enough for what? The primary issue I have with Matrix is that > there's too much concentration of servers under the control of > matrix.org - but I think that they believe that too, and that > this will be rectified over the next few years. Well, apparently lots of people[1] seem very upset about and hell bent to change Signal's (the service) policies on federation, third-party clients, etc. Why? There's Matrix, that already has all that. Why insist that everybody else has to do that as well? Live and let live, anyone? [1] not referring to anyone in particular Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
