Re:Signal not in compliance with new rules, say officials
by Ugohcet on Thursday June 24, 2021 @09:46AM
(#27617296)
Signal can pull a Durov and start hopping popular cloud hostings and CDNs, pushing latest server IPs via FCM. This worked for a year in Russia - they banned several large subnets of AWS and DigitalOcean, millions of IPs and smaller subnets, temporarily banned Google, but in the end still gave up after a year.
Re:Signal not in compliance with new rules, say officials
by bubblethink on Thursday June 24, 2021 @09:55AM
(#27617442)
Signal has already tried similar approaches (domain fronting), and had to stop because the cloud providers do not want any of it.
Re:Signal not in compliance with new rules, say officials
by ajconway on Thursday June 24, 2021 @10:03AM
(#27617594)
The decentralization argument comes up fairly often in similar discussions. Assuming it was Matrix and not Signal, what advantage would there be in the current situation?
Re:Signal not in compliance with new rules, say officials
by turminal on Thursday June 24, 2021 @10:52AM
(#27618464)
It'd be harder to ban existing installations I suppose.
Re:Signal not in compliance with new rules, say officials
by consumer451 on Friday June 25, 2021 @08:12AM
(#27629739)
> Add: and Signal's centralized server IPs banned. Signal is really weak here; shouldn't have been centralized to begin with.
Here is Moxie's talk about this very subject, and why he thinks that decentralized products can be much weaker products.
Add: and Signal's centralized server IPs banned. Signal is really weak here; shouldn't have been centralized to begin with.