Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zuckerberg Plans To Integrate WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, plans to integrate the social network's messaging services -- WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger -- asserting his control over the company's sprawling divisions at a time when its business has been battered by scandals.

The New York Times: The move, described by four people involved in the effort, requires thousands of Facebook employees to reconfigure how WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger function at their most basic levels. While all three services will continue operating as stand-alone apps, their underlying messaging infrastructure will be unified, the people said. Facebook is still in the early stages of the work and plans to complete it by the end of this year or in early 2020, they said.

Mr. Zuckerberg has also ordered all of the apps to incorporate end-to-end encryption, the people said, a significant step that protects messages from being viewed by anyone except the participants in the conversation. After the changes take effect, a Facebook user could send an encrypted message to someone who has only a WhatsApp account, for example. Currently, that isn't possible because the apps are separate.

76 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Bad decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From google killing off ad blockers, to zuck killing off some of the biggest applications in the world. I guess Gates was right when he said “Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose.”

    1. Re:Bad decisions by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Gates said that? Wow, I thought he never said anything smart. Turns out he did.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Bad decisions by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Gates is phenomenally smart, and I've never even heard of him saying anything dumb (although I'm sure he has, and he admits he has). He's been a bad salesman at times and done selfish things. But dumb?

      BTW, that 640K line isn't well sourced and has been denied.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    No point in keeping them separate. Would be a good thing if the resulting protocol stop being reliant on a mobile phone number and a mobile phone to operate.

    1. Re:make sense by e432776 · · Score: 1

      It seems like very significant effort will be needed to integrate the services, so the question to me is why undertake that effort. Increased and integrated data collection on users seems very likely to be part of the reason. The comment above that indicates "That is probably "good enough" for facebook's social graph and combined with other data harvesting efforts ad targeting" is spot on I think.

      They are not doing all this work for no reason. But I would be interested to read what others reasons might be.

    2. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Even without data collection (which they can already perform separately), there is a good reason. By having 2 (or 3, I didn't know instragram was a messaging platform) different services, they leave the door open to the competition.
      By merging Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp networks, they get the largest user base by a wide margin and could therefore "win" the messaging war.

    3. Re:make sense by DogDude · · Score: 1

      They have a harder time tracking everything you do (and everywhere you go and everything you say) without a cell phone number. They're not ever going to drop that requirement.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't subscribe to whatsapp withtout a phone number that can receive an SMS. You can't login to whatsapp on two phones at the same time.
      You can't use whatsapp from your PC without having it installed on your phone first. And I think your phone must even be on and with an Internet connection so that your PC can send a whatsapp message.

      Facebook messenger doesn't have any of these limitations.

    5. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 2

      so they would delete user accounts without a phone number? Or block access? Seems unlikely stupid, but this is Facebook so we never know.

    6. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      You should never trust whatsapp or Facebook for encryption anyways.

    7. Re:make sense by piojo · · Score: 1

      What you see as a disadvantage is to me a big advantage: I never need to login. There is no password to lose. Contacts are managed automatically by systems that already exist (address books linked to the phone). Identity is account and contact.

      Some people don't like this characteristic. For example, some women prefer to give out their contact information for a different chat program, because giving out a phone number opens them up to possible future harassment.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    8. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      You do need to login. Instead of providing a simple username and password which can be saved in your browser data, you need to scan a QR code on your phone to login on your PC. It sucks. On your phone, you login by receiving an SMS. It sucks too.

      It's also trivial to use the address book without having to rely on a phone number as an identifier.

      They could at least provide the option to create a password for those who can use one. And no excuse for working only on phones, and a single phone at a time.

    9. Re:make sense by piojo · · Score: 1

      I think if you look at other implementations which attempted to do what you are describing (Facebook, Skype for Android), you'll find that the integration of a standard online account/contact list with the phone's address book is hardly "trivial". Or has someone actually managed to integrate as well as WhatsApp without using phone numbers as unique identifiers?

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    10. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Well first of all, I am not sure I want whatsapp to scan over all my contact list.

      But to give an example, Hangouts (or whatever google calls it these days) seems to be doing what you describe just fine, without using the phone number as an identifier.

      There is no excuse to use a phone number as an identifier nowadays.

    11. Re:make sense by piojo · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, Hangouts does seem to have a convenient UI for integrating proprietary address book with contact phone numbers. Though note that even that system wouldn't work without a phone number still acting as a unique identifier.

      There is no excuse to use a phone number as an identifier nowadays.

      The thing I think you are not paying attention to is that users like the way the system was designed, including the simplicity and authentication being your SIM, for both the phone and the computer.

      But your points about the drawbacks are valid. I'm just one of those users who likes the end result so much that he overlooks the drawbacks.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    12. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Though note that even that system wouldn't work without a phone number still acting as a unique identifier.

      Yes it would, Hangouts uses email addresses.
      It's pretty trivial to do. You scan the address book for all contacts. As soon as one send you a message, it gives you access to his/her status (that person just confirmed to add you to his/her contact list).

      It could even use many different IDs (email, phone number, user name) and merge everything into a contact list and it would be transparent for the user.
      The only way NOT to do it is the current whatsapp way.

      The thing I think you are not paying attention to is that users like the way the system was designed, including the simplicity and authentication being your SIM, for both the phone and the computer.

      Some users may like it but I don't think it's the majority. Also I would definitely not call it simple. To use your phone (and a QR code) to connect to whatsapp web is definitely not simple. Also I think you forget all the potential users would could be interested by a messaging program they would use only on their PC and are not interested in using it on a phone at all. Whatsapp is definitely not simple to use for them.

      And finally the authentication is not your sim. It's your phone number and you must receive an SMS. Swapping the SIM into another phone isn't enough. They could still keep this authentication method for those who can't remember a password.

    13. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      I'm just one of those users who likes the end result so much that he overlooks the drawbacks.

      What's so special about the end result? What does whatsapp do that can't be done with a dozens competitors? I see nothing.
      The only reason I can find people use whatsapp is its quite large user base.

    14. Re:make sense by piojo · · Score: 1

      You have made some great points, but you're so adamant about your opinion that I wonder whether you actually want the answer. Since it's a sentence, here goes: when I meet a new person, the only piece of information I want to exchange is a phone number. I throw away cards, I consider my e-mail address private, and I don't use Facebook. That trumps all other concerns, as exchanging e-mails is simply not something I will do when other options are available.

      Furthermore, I know that if a person uses WhatsApp, it is generally a good way to reach them, unlike other services. (Good luck trying to reach me on Skype if I haven't opened the app in two months.)

      By the way, LINE and Viber use the same model as WhatsApp, so it's hardly alone. Telegram uses a hybrid model like Google Hangouts.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    15. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      You could still be found or added to a contact list by phone number, even if you login with a username or email address. Even skype allows this I think. But at least Skype allows you to hide your phone number. I consider my phone number much more private than my email address as it's harder to change and filter.

      Furthermore, I know that if a person uses WhatsApp, it is generally a good way to reach them, unlike other services. (Good luck trying to reach me on Skype if I haven't opened the app in two months.)

      The same can be said for whatsapp. I haven't opened it in over two years.
      The only difference is that you probably have more people using whatsapp than skype in your inner circle. It's not because whatsapp does anything better.

      By the way, LINE and Viber use the same model as WhatsApp, so it's hardly alone

      I agree, and I despise them all. Especially since there are better alternatives out there without this big limitation.
      There is a hype around these applications but I predict that people will move on at some point. I am an optimist and I hope the crappiest technology won't win the messaging war.

    16. Re:make sense by piojo · · Score: 1

      You could still be found or added to a contact list by phone number, even if you login with a username or email address. Even skype allows this I think. But at least Skype allows you to hide your phone number. I consider my phone number much more private than my email address as it's harder to change and filter.

      Furthermore, I know that if a person uses WhatsApp, it is generally a good way to reach them, unlike other services. (Good luck trying to reach me on Skype if I haven't opened the app in two months.)

      The same can be said for whatsapp. I haven't opened it in over two years.
      The only difference is that you probably have more people using whatsapp than skype in your inner circle. It's not because whatsapp does anything better.

      You are completely right. And it's not just my inner circle, but my city.

      You've raised legitimate points. We are back to what I said yesterday: for years, WhatsApp was the only chat app to have a really good user interface on mobile (using contact discovery and displaying chats in a way that users found convenient, with powerful options to mute chats and set privacy options, yet almost never dropping messages and absolutely never silently logging itself out), it's a program my locale has gotten comfortable using. Despite the inconvenience of needing phone connectivity to chat on a computer, I find its other features to be better than the competition. For another app to win in my locale, it would need to be significantly better than WhatsApp, not a mixed bag of better/worse features, as seen by the failure of WeChat to fully take over in my locale (despite it having big market share already).

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    17. Re:make sense by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      for years, WhatsApp was the only chat app to have a really good user interface on mobile (using contact discovery and displaying chats in a way that users found convenient, with powerful options to mute chats and set privacy options, yet almost never dropping messages and absolutely never silently logging itself out),

      There are chap apps dropping messages and logging themselves out silently? Never heard of these. Blocking/muting contacts is also common. Chats are displayed just like anything else, for years.
      I still really don't get what's so special.

    18. Re:make sense by piojo · · Score: 1

      Skype and WeChat used to log themselves out, but I don't remember others. WhatsApp allows muting a chat for a set duration (with limited choices), which is a feature I use frequently. I haven't seen it in other apps, but I haven't been looking. Skype can't mute a conversation, period (Android app). Chats are now displayed chronologically by most applications, but that was a nifty feature, back when WhatsApp was new.

      Some other features I use heavily: "reply" is built in so you never need to manually copy and add "> " to show what you are responding to. You can scroll and search without lag. I "star" messages for future reference, so I can find something like an address from the menu.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  3. Sad by johnsie · · Score: 1

    I kind of liked whatsapp, even though it has got me into trouble numerous times. I like the idea of being able to communicate with my friends and family without having to have a "profile". And I like not having a wall where people post pictures and articles that I'm not interested in.

    1. Re:Sad by BlackOverflow · · Score: 1

      What kind of trouble did you get in?

  4. Re:Mmm hmm ... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    If its truly "end-to-end" than no - facebook, the telco others can't see it. As far as government goes they really are mostly satisfied with the fact they can see that Jim chatted with Kathy, how often and when.

    That is probably "good enough" for facebook's social graph and combined with other data harvesting efforts ad targeting.

    What it seems incompatible with is their stated desire to do anything about what they believe is "fake news" or online harassment.

    The other angle I don't get is for all the negative press Zuck and facebook are getting If I were him I'd be concerned, about regulators getting heavy handed. I'd be concerned certain demographics might abandon a platform etc. I would want to keep the properties separate for those reasons. If I can't keep the kiddies on fb, I can at least keep them on watsapp, etc..

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  5. Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After the changes take effect, a Facebook user could send an encrypted message to someone who has only a WhatsApp account, for example. Currently, that isn't possible because the apps are separate

    Already my WhatsApp is being swamped with spam and forwards. There is no threading mechanism, no clear idea of what message is responding to whom. There is no way scroll past things I am not interested in. Pretty soon signal to noise degrades so much users resort to wholesale "delete all unread messages". I hate that damned thing.

    But so many of the groups I am interested in insist on using WhatsApp. Easy, convenient, at hand. A typical alumni group of about 100 people have 10 people responsible for 90% of the postings. 10 more read those posts. The rest delete all messages blindly.

    Now you allow Facebook users to spam the WhatsApp account. The already poor signal/noise ratio will degrade even further. I am hoping this finally kill WhatsApp for good and something better might emerge to take its place. Need the convenience and easy access, but some sort of threadable interface, some sort of AI learning who reads messages from whom and automatically group messages as "likely to be read" "likely to be skipped" ...

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      All for WhatsApp dying, but what is going to replace it? There is a real need for a modern cross-platform messaging system.

    2. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It almost like these things are being designed by people who've never seen usenet.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by mccalli · · Score: 1

      RCS is meant to be the thing. Be interested to see its progress.

    4. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      An all-platform messaging system already exists. It's called e-mail, and thankfully it's not owned by a single corporation.
      I don't see the need for a bazillion services that do nothing but duplicate the functionality of email, badly.

    5. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It almost like these things are being designed by people who've never seen usenet.

      usenet doesn't do any of the things they want to do, like track eyeballs. If they wanted usenet, they'd have used usenet.

      With that said, usenet + email + some kind of web of trust system would provide all the actually useful functionality of facebook, using 1980s technology...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by fallen1 · · Score: 2

      What about the severe child porn problem that is apparently plaguing WhatsApp (https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/20/whatsapp-pornography/)? All this move to make communications end-to-end encrypted across all three platforms will do is extend the amount of people that can be reached, and can reach, those resources nearly anonymously -- making it more difficult to investigate the situation.

      --

      Dream as if you'll live forever.
      Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
      ~Anonymous~

    7. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by Voyager529 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An all-platform messaging system already exists. It's called e-mail, and thankfully it's not owned by a single corporation.
      I don't see the need for a bazillion services that do nothing but duplicate the functionality of email, badly.

      E-mail has its advantages, but it has its drawbacks. It does threaded messaging terribly. It does many-to-many terribly. It is too easy for conversations to get fragmented and splintered, and incredibly difficult to rejoin them thereafter. Attachment limits are never clear. Spam is everpresent. There is no meaningful sent/delivered/read notification.

      There is a reason why Slack and Teams exist, and are popular in corporate environments where E-mail has long-since been a standard. I agree that a common, open protocol is preferable to the current hodgepodge of Hangouts/Kik/Whatsapp/Messenger/Viber/WeChat/GroupMe/Skype/BBM/++. However, XMPP hasn't seemed to have E-mails success, and clients built on top of it tend to lock their implementation down, which doesn't serve the purpose.

    8. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      good luck explaining how to use e-mail to our grandma...

    9. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      You missed the word modern; what is important is that it allow for different modes of communication-- text, voice, video, sending attachments. I prefer e-mail for almost everything except when *I* want text messages, but the opportunity to seamlessly transition to a phone or video call is pretty big.

      The frameworks are there for a distributed system, there just aren't applications really supporting it.

    10. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Everything but video.

    11. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should kick a few people out of the group chats?

    12. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by sjames · · Score: 1

      We need to ban POTS lines and fax machines IMMEDIATELY!

      Also math and email.

    13. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      RCS is always going to suck as its a SMS/MMS replacement. It's based on phone number. No way to send a RCS from a Internet-connected PC or WiFi-only tablet without piggy-backing on your phone.
      It's also going to suck because carriers are going to own it, and will be able to bill by the message just like they sometimes do with SMS.

    14. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      it's not native as you need another device (usually a phone) with a phone number capable of receiving an SMS to use.

    15. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That would be PGP, also 80's technology

      Yeah, right after I posted my comment and re-reread it, I realized I forgot to mention encryption. You also need some kind of fancy news reader with some reasonable filtering system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Thank god, this will kill WhatsApp finally! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If only the world still functioned on open protocols.

      There's really nothing stopping us from making our own USENET, with blackjack, and hookers. All the software is still around.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Maybe to fend off a breakup by schwit1 · · Score: 2

    There have been calls to break up Facebook and other tech giants on antitrust ground. if Instagram and whatsapp are tightly integrated with FB to the point that it's one app this would make separating the functionality much harder.

  7. Re:He Also Intends To Be President by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    One ring to rule them all.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  8. Re:Alternative? by johnsie · · Score: 1

    Telegram used to be almost an exact clone. Not sure if it's still that way.

  9. Closed source end to closed source end! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but end-to-end encryption between closed source applications (and probably FB servers on top) is so much not secure, let alone trustworthy, that it sounds more like a joke than a serious thing.

    Yeah, you install an enemy bug in your home, and somebody else installs the same type of bug. Then them talking to each other in secret is about keeping *your* secrets private...
    Riiight. :)

    Get Signal. Same thing, but actually done right.

    1. Re:Closed source end to closed source end! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Get Signal. Same thing, but actually done right.

      The more folks we can convince to use Signal, the better. I'm using this article as further proof to the unconverted that it's time to drop WhatsApp and come over to the *reasonably trustworthy* side with me and the other tinfoils hats who have been using Signal for years.

  10. Re: Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Signal. I believe Telegram as well.

  11. Re:Alternative? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know of a Whatsapp alternative that doesn't suck?

    Suckiness (or lack thereof) is only one small part of the puzzle.

    Someone could build something awesome - but if the people you want to chat to aren't on it then it'll go nowhere.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  12. Avoiding breakup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're doing this to make it harder for the gov't to break up Facebook under anti-trust regs.

  13. Re:Alternative? by BlackOverflow · · Score: 1

    mega.co.nz claims to have end-to-end encryption. As for how scummy they are, I guess it depends on if you trust the New Zealand government or Kim Dotcom. :)

  14. Re: Mmm hmm ... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Well right, that is why I said *truly* because what those of us on slashdot define as end to end; that the sender and named recipients of the message possess the keys required to decipher the content and nobody else does and what Zuck mees could be different.

    However as others point out we are talking about mobile apps here. These are closed source things are platforms where its difficult to even inspect the filesystem on your own device. The apps themselves are obfuscated and protected from decompile and inspection (android) and cipgered themselves (IOS). The only way to really find out what they are doing is to instrument them which means running them on a device you have rooted (using super sketch software from dubious providence in almost all cases).

    So FB can easily push a change that hand them all the keys or gives them a backdoor at anytime. Hell they might not even need to change the binary. Just allow the web view these apps use to load some JS that sends the messages to an additional recipient. They idea you are going to have any real protection againt FB spying on you using these things or anyone else doing it at least with FB's cooperation is silly for the start.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  15. "Plans"? by daveime · · Score: 1

    Instagram has been using the Facebook CDN to deliver images for at least a year already. And making friend suggestions for Instagram based on your FB friends list ...

    Failing to understand why this is even "news".

  16. What's the point? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I don't use anything Facebook for obvious reasons, hence my question: What's the point of these various messaging services? Since all of the Facebook and Google ones seem to require a cell phone number now, why not just use the cell phone to communicate? Why run everything through Facebook?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  17. Re:Alternative? by ciurana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anyone know of a Whatsapp alternative that doesn't suck? End to end encryption that is promised by someone that's not scummy like Facebook or Google? What Whatsapp used to be before being purchased by Facebook. Needs to work on apple and android.

    Telegram. Now it has nicer features than WhatsApp or Messages.

    The source is open - better scrutiny. macOS, iOS, Android, Windows, Linux. Conversations move seamlessly from one device to the next.

    Telegram pissed off both Roskomnadzor and NSA because it has strong encryption and little central oversight - a bonus. If it's good enough to piss Putin's goons and our goons, it's good enough for us to use. I work nowadays with a couple of major VCs, and most chat about deals and other sensitive topics have moved to Telegram because it makes everyone feel less exposed than with Google/WhatsApp/Slack/etc.

    Cheers!

    --
    http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
  18. In Other News by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jim Jones will host a Koolaid Social at 6PM.

    Seriously, there is no reason to be on Facebook anymore

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:In Other News by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      Seriously, there is no reason to be on Facebook anymore

      Seriously then, don't go on there. Still trying to figure out how this made it to +4, Interesting.

      Facebook exists for the same reason that the NFL does: Some people still find it interesting. Doesn't mean there isn't a swath of people that wouldn't be affected if it went away tomorrow. Different people have different interests, news at 11.

  19. WUPHF by flogger · · Score: 1

    I hope it's like Ryan's WUPHF app. :-)

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
  20. Re:Alternative? by DogsBollocks · · Score: 1

    Telegram, all the way, it's cross platform too, unlike Whatsapp.

  21. Re:Alternative? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    https://telegram.org/

  22. WTFC by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

    Really, Who the F*&$ cares about Facebook anymore. Why is it even a topic on /. ?

    1. Re:WTFC by jouassou · · Score: 1

      Well, Facebook still has roughly 1.5 billion daily active users (numbers from september 2018), which means that 20% of the world's population care about Facebook enough to use it every single day. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the world's population with unfiltered internet access fall in the "casual Facebook user" segment. Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you'll be indirectly affected by whatever Facebook chooses to do via all the people and companies around you that still interact with Facebook.

      I don't like Facebook either, but similarly to other tech monopolies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, they're way too powerful and important to not report on them in the news...

  23. Re:He means XMPP with Omemo. by Octorian · · Score: 1

    Did XMPP/Omemo ever bother to implement a retry mechanism for E2E messages? The last time I looked, it seemed as though they decided to not implement one.

    A robust retry mechanism is what makes *the* difference between a toy for tinkerers and a robust project that's actually usable in the real world. And yes, I speak from experience when I say this.

  24. Re:Alternative? by Octorian · · Score: 2

    Does anyone know of a Whatsapp alternative that doesn't suck? End to end encryption that is promised by someone that's not scummy like Facebook or Google? What Whatsapp used to be before being purchased by Facebook. Needs to work on apple and android.

    Telegram. Now it has nicer features than WhatsApp or Messages.

    The source is open - better scrutiny. macOS, iOS, Android, Windows, Linux. Conversations move seamlessly from one device to the next.

    Telegram pissed off both Roskomnadzor and NSA because it has strong encryption and little central oversight - a bonus. If it's good enough to piss Putin's goons and our goons, it's good enough for us to use. I work nowadays with a couple of major VCs, and most chat about deals and other sensitive topics have moved to Telegram because it makes everyone feel less exposed than with Google/WhatsApp/Slack/etc.

    Cheers!

    Telegram does not do E2E by default. Please stop deluding yourselves into thinking its somehow a "more secure" option.
    IMHO, any messaging product that not do E2E-by-default is just implementing E2E for the purpose of paying lip service to the idea.

  25. WeChat clone? by Dr.Saeuerlich · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone at Facebook took a look at WeChat / Weixin - it's basically that. Whatsapp, Messenger, Instagram combined, in addition with games, payment systems, booking systems and whatnot. Not privacy friendly, but I guess that's what Zuck secretly wants.

  26. Re:Alternative? by jouassou · · Score: 1

    Signal. When you text or call someone that has the app, you get seamless end-to-end encryption by default. When you text or call someone that doesn't have the app, it automatically reverts to conventional SMS or phone calls. So in that sense, it's a very streamlined app, since you can talk to people with and without the app just as easily, and automatically "upgrade" your conversations to full encryption when your friends download it.

    The app itself is quite good in my opinion, and works on both Android and iOS. The desktop version is kinda quirky (at least on Linux), and sometimes takes forever to start up, but it works OK. Both the frontend and backend are open source.

  27. Re:Alternative? by jouassou · · Score: 1

    For the record: if you end up liking Signal, consider donating a couple of dollars to their development :).

  28. Re:Then use Signal. by sjames · · Score: 1

    I do wish Signal had video calls.

  29. WhatsApp End-to-End Encryption by shubus · · Score: 1

    So how many out there really believe we still have end-to-end encryption in WhatsApp? How many believe we will still have it after Zuck gets done integrating everything? I predict lots of backdoors! Never mind what Zuck says--his past actions have layed down the pattern. Maybe time to migrate to Telegram.

  30. Re:Then use Signal. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    it's had video calls for quite a while. Works OK.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  31. Privacy is Freedom by smugfunt · · Score: 1

    I use Wire and so do at least three people I know. Join us!

  32. Re:Alternative? by smugfunt · · Score: 1

    Wire. Handy comparison chart here.

    It's not immediately apparent from their site that wire is open source and free to use, but it is.

  33. Re:Then use Signal. by sjames · · Score: 1

    My bad, I looked at it but didn't see that video chat is there, just a different way to get to it.

  34. Re: Then use Signal. by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    Signal does have video calls on my phone but not on my desktop (debian based).

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  35. Survey says.... by RonVNX · · Score: 1

    No! *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding*

  36. universal connectivity by votsalo · · Score: 1

    What would it take make a universal "messenger" standard that would allow people to use the app of their choice to communicate with other users who also use the app of their choice? Like we already have with telephone and email.