It appears to depend on Bluesky designating entities to do the verification.

I think the existing domain-based verification system is a better way of doing that. Something like Mastodon’s verified links might be a nice addition. This more centralized system is… not what I hoped for.

Instagram and Tiktok are usable in a web browser, though they do want you to make an account.

Terms like “safe” and “private” are not binary.

Are the contents of your Signal conversations on an iPhone private with regard to mass surveillance conducted by governments and ISPs? Probably. Apple uses security and privacy as marketing points, and there are a whole lot of people looking for vulnerabilities in its products who are incentivized to disclose them (possibly with a delay for patches). Signal itself takes steps to prevent data leaks to less secure parts of the OS and other apps.

Would your conversations remain private in the face of a targeted attack against your device by a nation state willing to spend a significant amount of time and money when you’re using Signal on an iPhone that’s presumably used for purposes other than secure conversations with a small set of people you know? Almost certainly not.

I’ve read that it’s because fairphone has to pay a fee for each unlocked device, but it sounds a little weird so no idea if that’s real.

The posts seem to suggest that Google is charging them a fee in that case, but that would be a little surprising given Pixels have a no-fuss unlock, and Google permits third parties to redistribute its proprietary add-ons to Android free of charge for installation by end users.

In any case, you’ve convinced me this probably isn’t Fairphone being evil, though some sort of public explanation would be nice.

I don’t understand why this requires a code rather than a toggle in developer settings like a Pixel. That doesn’t seem like openness and a commitment to treating users fairly since they could change their policy at any time.

Tried this; continued to see no ads for anything at all. Am I doing it wrong?

I use Matrix, and I’ve moved some conversation with people I met in public rooms there to Signal because it kept failing to transfer keys rendering it unable to decrypt messages. I haven’t seen that in a while so maybe it’s fixed, but I haven’t been using it for one-to-one conversations lately.

Unfortunately, I’ve found most people have a lot of resistance to adding another messaging app. I don’t really understand why that is, but it’s true. Asking someone to install a messaging app when I’m their only contact who uses it and they have another way to contact me has a success rate near zero.

Maybe. The bad actor here seems to be the government of China, and the linked page says:

The individuals most at risk include anyone connected to: Taiwanese independence; Tibetan rights; Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities in or from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; democracy advocacy, including Hong Kong, and the Falun Gong spiritual movement.

I can imagine them casting a wide net.

What is this? A Twitter post?

Just about. JWZ is known for his cynical hot takes on tech in general.

I don’t think any of his complaints are invalid, though his conclusions are uncharitable at best. Making a communication tool that’s both reasonably secure and sufficiently palatable to people who don’t know how to use computers to achieve broad adoption is a hard problem with no perfect solutions. If he has a better idea, well… he’s a skilled and somewhat famous programmer; he’s better equipped than most to implement it.

Each participant is sent a separate copy of each message encrypted with their own key.

Some people have privacy expectations that are not realistic in an unencrypted, federated, heterogeneous environment run by hobbyist volunteers in their spare time.

It you have something private and sensitive to share with a small audience, make a group chat on Signal. Don’t invite any reporters.