• brrt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Milk is getting more expensive. Moral of the story: Buy a cow.

      I really wish people would stop being so delusional about the average person’s technological abilities. jUsT TeLL grAn To sPin Up a mATrIx SErvEr… stfu

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        “Everyone should be hosting a server” was NOT my point, sorry if I got misunderstood. My mother could in no way host an XMPP server on her own - but I could register her an account on mine.

        Rather, I meant: a) if you can host it, suggest your friends and family to use your server; b) if you can’t - that is still better: with multiple public servers available, there is no single point of failure, you can choose a server in whatever jurisdiction you want, or even an onion/i2p one.

        • brrt@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Sorry for being harsh at the end. I just see this notion too often.

          But still, your option b) is not self hosted. Maybe a better word to use would be decentralized then?

          • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            That’s just pedantry. ‘Selfhosted’ never meant that every single user has to host it themselves.

            • brrt@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              It’s not pedantry, it’s using the right terminology.

              And yes, self hosted means hosted by yourself. It’s in the name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_(web_services)

              The promise of self hosting is that you own your data which may be better for privacy/security if you know what you are doing. The same doesn’t apply if you have to trust a third party, even if it is a friend/family member who provides you with a service they host. They become a service provider to you.

              • boonhet@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                self hosted means hosted by yourself

                A lot of selfhosters share with family. I’m not gonna make my wife spin up her own servers when she can use mine.

                • brrt@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  And what would you call your wife in this scenario? A selfhoster? Or a user of a service hosted by boonhet?

                  She’s not using a selfhosted service, she’s using a boonhet-hosted service. Because she has no control over the service or her data.

        • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Are you the only one who decides that? My grandparents have a bunch of children and grandchildren, if I tried to take their smartphone away the others would just call me an asshole and give them a new one.

    • Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      We have never come across one that is as easy to use as Signal and has no problems with encryption, either that it can have its encryption turned off, it breaks easily or that it makes dubious claims with few-no audits to back them up.

      Plus the common person enjoys the fun features of Signal or other easy messengers, most decentralised messages do not have these features, are indefinitely working on them or make them not as easy to use, leading to most being uninterested in those messengers.

      We have tried most if not all of them, than most and they are definitely lacking as much as we wish they were not. Decentralised encrypted (or partially encrypted) messengers always seem to have problems whether it’s with their encryption, moderation tools, connectivity or the lack of other features.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      No way in hell my relatives are going to use a messenger I selfhosted. My brother doesn’t even use Signal for whatever reason, even though even my grandmother has it.

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

        That is the problem of getting another person to change something… A very valid problem but not inherent to decentralization.

        • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Kinda is, though - regular people have a lot more trust in centralized services, and Signal has a very large userbase compared to anything selfhostable. And IME they really, really hate installing new messengers.

          Plus, selfhosted E2EE would still be just as illegal as Signal. Many people won’t be willing to participate in illegal activity, and if you just don’t use E2EE on your selfhosted solution the usefulness seems rather dubious.

            • obbeel@lemmy.eco.br
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              What if the government shuts off the app source (and source code) and makes it illegal for anyone to download or redistribute it?

            • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              It doesn’t necessarily have to be enforcable to deter most people. At minimum, with such a ban there’s zero chance to communicate with government agencies with E2EE.

            • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              well in the end it’s just HTTPS traffic… police has to search your phone to know if you are a user.

              but if you federate (on clearnet), that could give away that you host it

              • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Well, technically, they could MITM the traffic similarly to how they did to jabber . ru. But a) there are mitigations for this and b) more importantly - they would need to bother. No one’s going to bother doing it to a random family server that has attracted no previous attention.

    • jimmy90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      true but this is not yet easy enough for normal humans. selfhosting anything is not yet easy enough

      • LazycogA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        And is potentially even less secure if someone who has no idea about managing a server at all tries to spin up an online service.

        • jimmy90@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          yeah, with e2e encryption i guess you’re ok as long as your mobile with the keys doesn’t get hacked, but that’s equally likely