• 2 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle













  • I agree. There is a potential barrier to entry, and growth. I argue:

    • people part with money for a cause or belief. Culturally privacy apps are different, inconvenient and unfamiliar UX, there are usually no ‘email signups’, not run by ads, or sales of data, and the software is free but has a learning curve. People do it anyways because they believe it is right
    • Its not unusual to pay $1-$15 for an app in a mobile app store. At least they can get their money back (it’s actually free to use)
    • users can be compensated for ‘rich’ abusive actor, at the same time incentivised to report in the case of ie chat app

    The first point is the most important IMHO, privacy users accept the learning curve and inconvenience because they believe privacy is more important and because of this, I believe the burden is not as high as we think, that a ‘free to play’ alternative means of accessing privacy respecting apps (by this idea or something else) is as as essential to supporting and protecting privacy as E2EE vs server side encryption.





  • No different than syncing to a server. Many video calls are implemented with p2p up to a certain amount of participants. Text is less demanding in comparison. I’ve not dived into the code yet but p2p relays typically just coordinate what IPs need to connect. In your case, once the connection is established the phone is directly transferring data with your laptop. No server in between.