This is the piece I find interesting:
> We do not recommend Matrix because we find unacceptable that a software widely hyped as decentralized is released sending a scandalous collection of private data to their central servers, even if you run your own instance.
> What the heck is insecure about that? Other than vague promises that the Jews have my data?
I mean, if it's connected to any intelligence (I'm not saying it is, nor do I know anything about Matrix's history), it being secure may just be a facade.
Funny thing, there are lots of contributors to matrix stack (protocol, sever, etc) and only some part of them are New Vector employees, because it's open source. Again, you can check that yourself in matrix repos
Of course, I'm not employee of any intelligence and can't prove that, but that's just my opinion
>XMPP and many other technologies were already there
This is so obviously far from the truth. XMPP is lacking in so many different features that Matrix has.
>Matrix is not a community-based software, it was born [00] in Amdocs [01], a multinational corporation founded in Israel.
>On the Internet we find many pieces information connecting Amdocs with Israel’s Intelligence]
Ah here comes the "its the jews" argument
One thing I never understood. I can run a chat server hosted on the computer next to me. It is e2e encrypted. I can use any number of clients or servers, some developed by New Vector, some not. I can easily send images, text, voice, etc. I can bridge it to dozens of other services. I can federate if I choose to, with other servers. Or, I can not federate if I decide not to.
What the heck is insecure about that? Other than vague promises that the Jews have my data?
Did I simply miss the crux of this entire article?
Who cares about Matrix.org? Seriously. It's a technology. That's one implementation of the technology. It's not mine, though. That's what makes Matrix special. Did people harp on XMPP for Google collecting data over it?