• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    I also don’t trust Signal…

    …why?

    I might as well switch to Matrix chat now.

    Man, Simplex seems to check all the boxes for me…

    • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      …why?

      While it might be secure… I’m done with centralized services… If I can’t host it myself, I won’t bother switching anymore.

      I don’t know Simplex chat very well… But that seems also good… As long as you can have encryption and run your own server. It’s not that I have anything to hide, but at the same time I’m tired of the infiltration of all states (which now also include EU).

      EDIT: They need to change their name. The first results you get in search engines are this: https://www.simplex.com/ followed by (Dutch): https://simplex.nl/

    • kevincox
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Simplex doesn’t support mutli-device. That’s a deal breaker for me. I do 90% of my messaging at my desktop but also want to be able to chat on the go. Using my laptop on the couch is also fairly convenient.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        SimpleX also loses messages if you don’t pick them up in time. Going on vacation for a few weeks could be problematic, for example.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            The only information that I have is that I personally use it on multiple devices, and I didn’t invent it, I just downloaded the software provided by SimpleX.

        • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          No, it does not. The closest it comes is allowing a PC to take control of a mobile client on the same local network. That might be a convenient way to type with a full-sized keyboard if you have both devices in the same place, but it is not what people mean when talking about multi-device support.

          GP wants the ability to use their account from multiple devices independently. From different locations, not tethered on a LAN. With shared message history, notifications, unread state, identity, etc. That’s what multi-device support means in the context of messaging services.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Device 1: PC Device 2: Phone

            How many devices is that? 2? Sounds like multiple devices to me 🤷‍♂️

            • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              18 hours ago

              2 devices that can’t function independently. That would make it functionally one device. You’re just splitting hairs now.

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                18 hours ago

                2 devices

                Glad we settled that one.

                You’re just splitting hairs now.

                My guy, you’re the one splitting hairs.

                • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  No, lol. “Multi-device” does not just mean “multiple devices can be involved”. It means “Multiple devices can operate independently”

                  And you know that. But you’re splitting hairs to try and fit this use case into something it’s not.

                  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 hours ago

                    No, lol. “Multi-device” does not just mean “multiple devices can be involved”.

                    My guy… “multiple” = >1. “Device” = some sort of electronic. It’s that simple. And you know that. But you’re splitting hairs to try and win an internet argument and misrepresent something you don’t like.