• AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Point 2 is mostly not true, in that Molly exists and you can do reproducible builds with either implementation.

    • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      To be fair, from Signal’s attitude it seems that Molly is tolerated rather than welcomed. And that it may be shut off if it gets big enough.

    • who@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Unless Signal’s policies recently changed, Molly is not interoperable, since Signal does not allow third-party clients to use their servers/network. That would make point 2 correct.

      If that policy has changed, then someone please link the announcement so I can update my notes.

      • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        They’ve been allowing Molly to continue to function for multiple years. Notably, from Molly’s readme:

        Molly connects to Signal’s servers, so you can chat with your Signal contacts seamlessly.

        I looked over the terms of service linked there and don’t see anything specifically calling out third party clients. Is that elsewhere in another terms page somewhere or is it just not being specifically mentioned?

        • who@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          It was a few years ago when I read Signal’s statement about this, so I’m afraid I don’t have a link for you.

          I believe you when you say Molly functions, but it’s important to note that without Signal’s blessing, anyone using Molly can be locked out of the network (and their chats and contacts) at any moment. It’s not the same as official interoperability.

          I wonder if the Digital Markets Act will eventually force it.

          • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            If they have such “security concerns” with third-party clients, a compromise would be to mark profiles using unofficial clients, and make it possible to see what client it is. Because it’s audacious to disapprove of third-party ones while your own lacks features people find important! Such as:

            • Allowing an arbitrary proxy rather than just their own solution (because not only is their own solution inferior to some of the more advanced censorship-evading technology, but this is the field that needs multiple options when one stops working. Also if a person uses a proxy for everything else anyway, making them set up a whole separate solution or find someone else’s proxy just for your app is pointless.
            • UnifiedPush.
            • Allowing tying a desktop client by typing a code rather than scanning a QR code, which is important when registering on an Android VM (because again, Signal just arbitrarily disallows account creation on a desktop, nevermind that most phones are very hard or impossible to make private!)
          • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Absolutely, and I’m not trying to say they don’t own their infra or have the ability to cut off the Molly users. Luckily, if that were to happen, you could use the automated backups to restore back into Signal, since they’re functionally the same.

            Regardless, both apps have reproducible builds. It’s the infra that isn’t reproducible.