Decrypting Amber Rudd
Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter & YouTube (Google/Alphabet, Inc) have formed the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and Amber Rudd is asking them to quietly drop end-to-end encryption from their products. You should not believe a single word any of those companies tells you about end-to-end encryption or privacy on their platforms ever again. PS. WhatsApp is owned by Facebook.
> WhatsApp is owned by Facebook.
It's a little too easy to imagine Facebook just taking out the primary feature of WhatsApp silently and nobody noticing.
great, now I gotta figure out if Signal's still safe and (thinking ahead) look to see if anybody has created a properly open-source end-to-end encryption app yet
(cannot remember RN if Signal is, but IIRC it isn't)
1. You say that like it's a problem. I basically don't know a lot of people and I'm mostly okay with that -- I can probably convince them to try it, esp since WhatsApp is "corp"-romised.
2. Give it time. When people recognize the value, they might show up -- even if that takes time to happen.
Also, it reminds me a paradox I often run into : I wants some nice or underdog products/apps to be more popular because I think they're great and promote of lots of values I care about. But at the same time, I don't want them to be too big because then they'll have to much power.
Like, I want more people to use Firefox, but not everybody because otherwise, it'll hurt the open web.
@mlcdf @sydneyfalk Which is why we must fund/build decentralised, interoperable, free and open technologies where there is no centre that can scale, no central accumulation of power and wealth even as the system itself grows, no incentive to scale vertically.
Mozilla, by the way, used to get the ~$400M/year it makes from Google and now does from Yahoo! They’re entirely funded by #surveillancecapitalism
Choice of words is always going to need to factor in audience. ^_^
But UI/UX stuff goes way deeper than that. A lot of technologists build things for other technologists, then wonder why it "didn't take off".
It's because most people cannot, and likely never will be, competent enough to deal with the interface as created.
It's sad, honestly. So many fruitful things have died on the vine because "we can't make this simpler".
Virtually every technology, computer or not, has had significant simplifications in terms of UI over time. It's necessary. It's vital.
If the barrier to use is "programmers only", you can't get things to "take off", by definition.
(Anyway -- sorry about the mini-rant, it's just a peeve of mine ^_^ )