For messaging, I highly encourage people to use matrix.org.

For tech savvy people it's really easy to self-host https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy and the good part is that you can set up bridges to telegram, whatsapp, facebook, irc, discord, slack... So you can use those apps privately while waiting for people to switch to better alternatives (which may never happens sadly).

Bonus: the desktop app is a rather lightweight web app usable in browser, so goodbye RAM eating monsters like slack and discord.

I tried, I really did. Got my close group of ~8 friends on the public Matrix server. People would miss messages because they only use Matrix for that one thing, and would forget to login/check/etc. That and a few choice little bugs pushed them back to FB messenger. That said, I'm hopeful for the future of the protocol.

Yes, things are still moving fast. AFAIK the final 1.0 version of the protocol spec was only released last Summer.

The "I missed message because I only use xxx for that one thing" is valid for every app as long as you have fragmentation in the messaging space I think. That's why I like the idea of using the same client for a multitude of services through bridges, and not forcing people to necessarily use your network (even if they should :p)

How do you deliver end-to-end encryption in a federated architecture like that?

You can peek at : https://matrix.org/docs/develop/ tldr; similar to signal afaik

The docs there for E2E are fairly old but get you an idea how it works. E2E has improved a lot in the last few months IMHO.

Interesting point, I am going to assume there is an option or bridge or plugin or something that can send an email notification that you or your group / chat room has new messages(?) - and this may be an important, perhaps default selected, option for new users trying out a matrix flavor(?)

I remember when fbk would send messages to everyone, some of my clients had a hundred emails a day from fbk in their inbox, and they were checking in several times a day, now it's become a habit regardless I think for most.

Getting emails likely would have pissed them off.

So we need an easy toggle, and option to do this via email reply.. and option to change notifications from each message into twice per day or once an hour or other options.. I think that would satisfy most people.

I hated emails from fbk and turned them all off long ago, but some people seem to like that kind of thing, so we might need options, and options for those who want a reminder but not a bunch of reminders everyday.

I'm impressed you were able to accomplish some specific thing you wanted to do using the FB settings.

funny thing about that, some time ago I tried to figure out how to stop all messages from fbook to my email, after menu hopping for some time, I allowed my gf to go into the settings and turn it all off and turn on many privacy settings. I know fbook has changed the privacy things several times since then, but I don't use it enough to have any issues I think.. I also don't use messenger app or fbook mobile, so I've gotten lucky (and helped) to get zero messages from them for years.

I tried. Friends didn't stay. In fact even I am myself not very keen on the existing implementation. I love the idea and the protocol but UX (on all the platforms) and the onboarding are really cumbersome. I don't ask anyone to go to Signal because it's centralized like WhatsApp, Fb.

I tried Matrix/Riot, but I ran into some big UI issues trying to get a E2E channel going between me and a friend (I had to "create" the channel multiple times, or add keys multiple times, I can't remember). And we share screens a lot, which Riot didn't seem to support.

It was a while ago, but I also seem to remember delayed messages.

The audio quality was nice though.

I was relly looking for something like that. I'll give a try!

Is encryption built in yet?

Facebook and Insta I can (and do!) live without. Whatsapp though, is the main method of communication, and particularly group communication for all of my friends. It's almost impossible to leave.

One approach that helped me convert some of my non-tech friends to Signal Messenger is by calmly focusing on the long term aspect -- "Think about it, you'd be using these tools for the next 40+ years. A small inconvenience for a few months will give more power to you in the long term." And then I stop. I let them take time to decide; don't insist.

On iOS it’s not a small inconvenience to use Signal. For several years now, Signal has prohibited backing up chats. So if you switch phones or get a new phone or lose your phone, all your previous chats are permanently lost. Even re-joining the chat groups you were a part of requires more work, and after that there are issues in not seeing the group name, the members and related things. Signal is just ok as an ephemeral messenger, but it’s not a solution or a replacement of any kind for the other messaging platforms that work as one would expect them to and provide key features that lay people appreciate. Going by the pace of development, my view is that it’ll be a good enough alternative in a decade.

There are also other basic issues with Signal (message deliverability, buggy and spurious “device number changed” notifications, etc.).

Note that I do use Signal and advocate it, but I do that with only certain people so that I don’t burn my personal “relationship capital” unnecessarily with a poor solution.

I don't use any of them, but I've been trying to keep in touch with an old friend of mine who's serving with the Canadian Armed Forces in Ukraine and we often miss each other's emails.

He's had to adopt a local SIM card over there for security purposes (Russia's listening) and uses WhatsApp regularly. He asked me to pick it up, and instead I referred him to Signal.

This was [part of] his recent response:

I downloaded signal but they want to confirm my number but my sim card doesnt work over here and my european card is data only.

So that is one blocker for sure but otherwise I always push people to Signal as a reasonable alternative.

Apparently if SMS verification fails, it can fall back to a phone call where a robot reads you the verification code. This means you could set up Signal with a landline, Google Voice, Skype, or Twilio.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-p...

Just make sure you don’t lose access to that number. Or you’ll find yourself locked out of Signal completely if someone else verifies an account using that number.

I've converted most of my friends to Signal. Easy switch.

[edit] The native desktop app is even better than WhatsApp's (doesn't stream data from your phone).

I'd say you were a lucky one. Persuading my contacts to move and explaining my rationale has been a long, arduous and still not quite complete process. People seem to struggle with envisaging how a lack of privacy will harm them personally.

I've also got most to switch to Signal. On Android, it's much easier as it can handle both SMS and Signal messages, so there's much less friction for usage.

Group chats are also fairly decent on Signal, I just wish there was a way for an "admin" to exist to moderate users in the group.

> I've also got most to switch to Signal. On Android, it's much easier as it can handle both SMS and Signal messages, so there's much less friction for usage.

Except my friend's gf could never really see when messages were using data or SMS. And my friend put a stop to the experiment because the linux client was leaking RAM like a dam and we both had sync problems between the phone and the desktop client (we are both huge telegram users for the smooth experience when connecting to your account and for syncing. We both despise the privacy risks though).

I empathize. It's the same situation in reverse for many people. The social networks I'm on is where my friends and/or fam are at. It becomes very hard to leave once you've imprinted your social network onto a social network platform. A very common situation.

I wonder if its possible to mirror messaging apps in some way... like to use messenger/whatsapp/{insert better app here} as 'clients' and sync messages in a non annoying way (of course, im sure this would be actively undermined)

Try AirSend (https://www.airsend.io). We use it for group communication both for personal and professional use.

It is private. Create a channel and invite your friends. Thats it.

Disclaimer: I work for them.

I had a very quick look. How is this different from Slack and how does it avoid the incessant notifications/interruptions/noise problem in Slack and similar platforms?

AirSend is custom built to address communication use case cases across organization boundaries. For instance, you don’t need to switch across workspaces to communicate with different parties. Unlike Slack It also provides the file context and task context in the same conversation space.

With respect to interruptions/noise it doesn’t have any advantages over Slack.

>It's not fair to the public that FB bought up Insta/Whatsapp.

The public probably is not able or willing to pay for extremely valuable instant global communications service that handles audio, video, photo, text, and other data. Regardless of who owns it, I know that my network of people across 4 continents derives great value from the free service.

WhatsApp was monetized before it was bought, although I can't remember exactly how.

They used to charge $1 per year after the first year

I know they said that, but I don't know anyone who actually had to pay it.

I paid it! I hoped for that model to win :(

Me too, they even advertised they charge $1 so that they will never have to sell or compromise your privacy.

Of course, that promise is worth less than $20B as we found out.

Everyone knew that was going away the moment they sold the app that had 1 billion users for 19 billion dollars.

The founders were being disingenuous when they said the data wouldn't be used for ads.

I would love to move to Signal and send anyone reaching out to me on Whatsapp an auto-reply with a Signal invite.

Couldn't find how to achieve that. Anyone knowing if this is possible?

It'd be possible, I think. You'd need to run WhatsApp web, which is an Electron app. Get into the dev tools and set it up directly from the JS console.

That's a nice idea if it works, bit hacky but still. I never used WA Web, will have a look.

Facebook has an API for whatsapp, which I believe is a closed beta. In theory you could build an app to do this for you, twilio supports this and let's you use a development key even before you get into the beta.

[I expect that's too many hoops for your use case though ;]

Thx! I found the Business API which is really for partners ( and for SMB's there is the Business app).

https://www.whatsapp.com/business/api

The Twilio API is in beta, and you can sign up. Don't know what pricing will be, but maybe for individual use a dev subscription may be sufficient

https://www.twilio.com/whatsapp

Here is the API reference:

https://www.twilio.com/docs/sms/whatsapp/api

Also see: https://www.messagebird.com/en/

Though, getting your own business-API would be cheaper, I've heard WhatsApp is very picky about granting those and instead prefer you work with a third-party partner instead [0].

Then, there's click-to-chat for simpler communication if the client's WA number is known [1].

[0] https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/general/26000239/?category=52452...

[1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/general/26000030/?category=52452...

Could you not just set you status in WhatsApp to all people to contact you via Signal?

Not as good as an auto responder but at least people would see it when searching for you in the app

Some alternatives to FB and WhatsApp exist - I’ve been working on an alternative social network called Thread (https://get.thread-app.com). Check it out!

I’d also recommend services like Signal for secure, private messaging.

We brought it to ourselves by not being willing to pay for WhatsApp.

WhatsApp before getting bought by FB was begging for money and is my understanding that it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

Public had a choice of free(as in beer) products vs privacy. We chose the former.

Whatsapp used to cost $1/year which covered operating costs (first year free).

Not true, WhatsApp did have a pricing test where certain users were pushed to pay 1€/$ per year. It was never unilaterally enforced.

Is that what that was? I remember getting the app and wondering why no one I knew ever had to pay for it.

It’s interesting because capitalism is all about choice and competition. But what if a player is so successful that it can pay to absorb any competitor that poses a serious threat? I don’t know how capitalism self heals from that.

Indeed. And FB retaining Instagram/Whatsapp apps+branding effectively squashes future "unbundling" attempts.

The way I look at it, if not even Google can beat FB at personal social networking (Google+), then FB has a monopoly and this is not a free market. Sure, anyone is free to start a startup and try to do what FB does, but I mean...

I suspect the only reason the government hasn't gotten involved in this matter yet is because FB offers seemingly non-essential service. A different situation than Microsoft and browsers.

My grandparents’ generation and my parents’ generation aren’t about to invest any effort into learning a new app. They’re happy with Whatsapp, it was the first to do what it needed to do easily, and unless a new app offers a compelling new feature, they’re not going to find it worth their time to learn it.

Unfortunately, they might not understand privacy concerns, but even if they did, they don’t have the language fluency or technical capacity to verify the claims of security.

Capitalism isn't all about choice and competition.

Free Markets are.

Capitalism is about the means of production being held in private hands - but those private hands still do their best to own all of the means of production and to lock out potential competitors.

The two get conflated (free markets and capitalism) but they are different beasts. In fact, you can have a free market socialism (tried semi-successfully by Yugoslavia). But ensuring free markets via regulation is how to keep Capitalism from becoming a Gibson novel.

Do you have a good read of free markets? I often see them pop up in discussions defending capitalism, and always got the idea they are some kind of utopia in the way they were presented.

Free market socialism? How would information about value be propagated? That's usually done via prices and money.

Some options:

a) Also using competition, prices and money, but with factories, companies and lands organized by worker's cooperatives, with the profit shared according with some logic not based in mere property.

b) Using only prices and money while keeping updated data about production and consumption, and updating prices based in these data. Perhaps easier with modern technology than in the past. The information about these things can propagate in wires and communication means like the other kind of information that the society needs.

I think that a) already happens when a company shares its profits with the workforce. Mere competition will force the competitors of such a company to do that as well to attract talent.

Item b) sounds like capitalism and blockchain to me :)

About item c), heuristics and politics don't go well together, according to my intuition.

But these are just my opinions. This is a fascinating topic.

There were some nasty edits from the parent

Precisely. "Prices and money" is the "free market" part. The "socialism" part means "collective/social ownership of companies and means of production".

It doesn't, that's one of the classic examples of when a natural market is not a free market. Even in its original definition, Adam Smith antipicipated a role for government to intervene to prevent just such situations.

> It’s interesting because capitalism is all about choice and competition. But what if a player is so successful that it can pay to absorb any competitor that poses a serious threat? I don’t know how capitalism self heals from that.

Capitalism is not naturally stable and it needs regulation to work to the benefit of most people. Without that, the capitalists work to destroy capitalism in order to benefit themselves.