I understand that it may be problematic sometimes but this was very smooth. I didn’t even say anything.

A: what’s your number for the whatsapp group Me: I don’t have whatsapp because of facebook. B: ok, we have to use signal then A: ok

And that was it. Life can be very easy sometimes

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Think it was related to the messages being insecure and signal didn’t want people to be confused.

      If your using signal your messages should be secure. SMS messages aren’t secure. It may have been clear to you when Signal send an sms or an encrypted message, but they need to cater to everyone.

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        That just feels like shooting themselves in the foot. Just inform the user SMS isn’t secure. That’s it.

        Not being willing to trust the user with the information so they can make a choice is asinine. It’s the same reason why I stopped using Tuta. Complete privacy and security are great but if there’s no option to make things a little more open for the sake of convenience or interconnectivity, I’m just not interested.

        Security and privacy shouldn’t be a prison.

        • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You can’t target UX to the average person. It won’t work for most people. You need to target those that struggle with technology the most to make it accessible.

          Signals main unique selling point is its security, not its ease of use. If people fall into useing signal in a insecure way, it can be hard to say signal is a secure messaging app. As many people may be using it insecurely.

        • Luke@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think you underestimate how oblivious many users are when it comes to using software.

          • toastal@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Honestly that was the initial appeal. Grandma didn’t notice or care that the old SMS app was hidden & just thought there was an update. That ignorance meant she was talking in an encrypted fashion where possible even if accidentally. And since you will need a SMS app anyhow for OTP & other one-off notifications, might as well have it all in one spot. The fact it is different is probably more confusing to some users.

            And without that appeal, the missing server code history, the US government funding, centralized service, the requirement of a SIM card (which many places now require ID to get so they can register you in a database), as well as the requirement of bowing to the mobile duopoly (can’t use the service if you have a KaiOS, Linux, or other phone—or without a phone), I don’t know there is much of an appeal. In hindsight, I wish I hadn’t gotten my family on it since I would love to ditch Android.

        • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Bad? Yes, on the way out? Maybe(mostly gone outside the US), but it’s really slow here in older less tech savvy demographics.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I guess what I want now is a client for both protocols that works like the old app. That would cater to me - I don’t remember which person is on which app so I keep ending up on SMS because it has everyone.