I’m pretty much since the beginning on Matrix. I have never experienced any questionable content. Large chats (thousands of users) have some spam problems, but the spammers banned quickly and the posts are being removed.
What am I doing right?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
on 29 Oct 22:20
nextcollapse
Not joining the rooms Element suggests on its own client? Element will show you a list of suggested, popular rooms to join, and a fuckton of these are overrun by spammers and worse. If Matrix has basically zero ability to curate these rooms outside of “here’s what’s got the most members”, then it absolutely should not in any capacity be recommending them, let alone as a way to get started for new users. It’s fucking ridiculous, and before you say “Well why should they be expected to curate the rooms they suggest?”, imagine the fucking disaster Discord would have on its hands if it started recommending servers, and several of its top 100 claimed to be related to popular FOSS applications but were actually completely unmoderated and filled with CSAM and Bitcoin scams.
just this week I’ve had multiple random matrix accounts start a chat with me to post an Imgur link with some Hitler bs. I assume they just chose random members of one or more fediverse related public matrix rooms to send that to. they probably just do this with random public rooms and the fediverse relation didn’t matter.
TechnicallyColors@lemm.ee
on 29 Oct 20:42
nextcollapse
Wow you weren’t kidding lol. I watched the 2.0 demo and at this timestamp there’s a CSAM-related room title that Matthew was invited to (at the top of the right window). Granted it’s probably someone stream-sniping, but it goes to show that there’s apparently active bad actors trying to interfere.
But then what’s the benefit to Signal? Just that it’s decentralized?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
on 30 Oct 01:21
nextcollapse
Decentralization actually can be really powerful to give you a backup even if you prefer Signal; Signal’s servers very infrequently go down, but when they do, you entirely lose that channel for an unpredictable amount of time.
I assume you also have to trust the servers which the accounts you’re messaging are stored on. (Although there are real situations where all users will be on the same server, where this is obviously a great benefit.)
You can’t know with certainty on Signal that the client and the server are actually keeping your messages encrypted at rest, you have to trust them.
This is untrue. By design, messages are never decrypted on servers when end-to-end encryption is in use. They would have to break the encryption first, because they don’t have the keys.
I’m very excited for this! Granted, I do wish they’d stop “announcing” Matrix 2.0, but I think the release of SSS alone is reason enough for celebration.
I have sync issues with even Slack or WhatsApp when I use an old device that hasn’t updated in a while - Matrix’s new sync scheme is genuinely fantastic and fixes all the issues my aging synapse server was having (4+ year server means those initial syncs on log-in could tak upwards of 10 minutes).
Now I just want Element Call to work with my pre-existing accounts and then I’ll be ready for the next Matrix 2.0 announcement 😂
Ensuring that Unable To Decrypt (UTD) bugs never happen. Huge amounts of work has gone into this over the course of the year, especially via complement-crypto as a comprehensive end-to-end-test suite for both matrix-rust-sdk and matrix-js-sdk based Matrix clients. We are finally at the point where UTDs are so rare that most people simply never see them.
matcha_addict@lemy.lol
on 29 Oct 19:11
nextcollapse
Still don’t understand the need for matrix when xmpp is a much more battle tested standard, far more lightweight, way less complex, and easier to make clients for.
It’s the issues with XMPP’s spec: you don’t just use XMPP, you use XMPP + your favorite optional spec implementations.
If your friends aren’t on the same server/client combo then you won’t be able to communicate with them (effectively).
I loved XMPP, still do, but haven’t used it in years. If it were to get a single, matrix-style “spec release” (think an aggregation of existing features into one collection) that contains/requires a bunch of modern chat features I’ve come to expect from programs, then I could see it potentially having a resurgence.
You should try it again instead of spreading very outdated info about it. All major clients and server implementations have more or less feature parity and interoperate fine these days (and yes there are yearly complicance suites for XMPP that are exactly what you are asking for). What you are saying was true 10+ years ago when Matrix didn’t even exist yet, and Matrix has very similar issues with different client and server combinations these days.
It’s the issues with XMPP’s spec: you don’t just use XMPP, you use XMPP + your favorite optional spec implementations.
Sorry, what’s the issue exactly? You called it an issue and I fail to see the problem. The X in XMPP stands for “extensible”, so it is being used precisely as intended, so that is still XMPP.
If your friends aren’t on the same server/client combo then you won’t be able to communicate with them (effectively).
You have to be going out of your way to have a non-compliant server or client. This isn’t really an issue that happens.
If it were to get a single, matrix-style “spec release” (think an aggregation of existing features into one collection) that contains/requires a bunch of modern chat features I’ve come to expect from programs
That’s how it is today though! I see the issue, you said you haven’t tried it in years. Admittedly, I only started with XMPP 2 years ago but haven’t had any of the issues you mentioned. Not sure when this became the status quo, but it is pretty awesome. Maybe it is worth trying again :)
Can you please explain why? A quick look at the spec for both protocols shows you that matrix is literally a hundred times more complex, so I don’t understand the basis of the contrary. The matrix creators have shown they are okay with increased complexity under the pretext of a more complete experience, but in reality, XMPP has achieved the same features with far less complexity.
If you’re speaking about self hosting, again, I don’t see how, as matrix is notorious for self hosting issues. XMPP’s snikket works out of the box and has all the commonly used features and plugins pre-baked. The underlying prosody implementation is a step down, but is also quite easy as long as you know what plugins and options to activate (and if you don’t, then use snikket).
I don’t want to defend Matrix. I agree that it is not stable and lightweight. However, I believe it is simpler than XMPP. Wanna set up a server? Synapse. Need a client? Element. The default softwares are easy for new users to discover.
Also, the fact that Matrix has a single protocol means that in theory all servers and clients can work with each other (Although I know we are far from that at the moment). It is much better than XMPP’s XEPs in terms of simplicity.
It’s not that I don’t like XMPP. I want a stable, encrypted, federated messaging platform. However, in terms of money and motivation, Matrix seems to be closer to that right now.
Wanna set up a server? Prosody (which has a hassle free out of the box experience through snikket)
Need a client? Conversations
The default softwares are easy to use for new users.
For matrix, however, you are forced to use synapse. You complain that xmpp is not a single protocol, but in reality, all the major implementations are compatible. Can you say the same about matrix? The other implementations aren’t even close to achieving this.
Xmpp’s extensions are a powerful feature, and the issues you think it presents do not exist with xmpp anymore, but is actually the status quo for Matrix.
When I decided to try XMPP, I had to do a lot of research to decide which applications I should use for the server and client. I did not experience this in Matrix. And yes, I know Matrix is not stable. I am not against that. It’s just easier to get on board.
If we told two people to use these two software independently, they would start using Matrix much more faster than XMPP. I think this is enough to call it uncomplicated.
Also, would you recommend Snikket server (or Prosody) for 1:1, group calls and screen sharing?
would you recommend Snikket server (or Prosody) for 1:1, group calls and screen sharing?
Answering this first so it doesn’t get buried down. Screen sharing wouldn’t be supported by xmpp since its just messaging, but I believe Jitsi has that feature. But for the rest, snikket and conversations (for android) I would recommend, yes.
When I decided to try XMPP, I had to do a lot of research to decide which applications I should use for the server and client.
Whatever is the first answer you get from a web search should be fine. Most sources recommend conversations for client, but all the other recommendations you’ll see are good too. For server, the easiest to setup is snikket, but all the other and up to date implementations should work okay, although they might need some configuration if you want all the modern messaging features.
If we told two people to use these two software independently, they would start using Matrix much more faster than XMPP.
Why do you think so? Let’s assume a user who doesn’t self host. XMPP clients are far more stable and error free, whereas matrix has random issues every now and then, especially with encryption and public groups.
XMPP clients are a lot more customizable and come in different models. Matrix has only one client that works well (and some forks of it that look roughly the same). I’d say that’s a win for XMPP for new users.
Now let’s say it’s a self hosting user. I don’t need to say much here, matrix is notorious for self hosting issues, and being a massive resource hog. XMPP, you have snikket, which works out of the box without issues and can be hosted on a raspberry pi even.
I may be biased here, so I urge you to tell me, in what way would a new user adopt matrix faster? I can tell you one. Matrix has corporate funding and has managed to advertise better. That’s their only win.
And to use it with a similar feature set, everyone is using different extensions which also have to be supported by the clients. I know there is this one server implementation (name escapes me at the moment) and Conversations on the client side, but it’s hardly the standard and we’re not really talking about plain XMPP then anymore.
The same is true if you use a Matrix server other than Synapse and a client other than Element. If fact these days the spec incompatibilities are way worse on Matrix than on XMPP.
Have you used XMPP recently and ran into the issue of non-obscure servers, clients, or self-hostable implementations using different extensions or not supporting them? (I actually haven’t experienced this even on the obscure ones, but can’t confirm for all of them). Please do not make that accusation, because that I’d really not what happens in reality.
it’s hardly the standard
Why not when… It literally is? And all major implementations follow it? That is by definition a standard.
and we’re not really talking about plain XMPP then anymore.
Why not? “extensible” is in the name. It is meant to be extended. The protocol is being used exactly as planned and intended.
independantiste@sh.itjust.works
on 29 Oct 19:55
collapse
XMPP Works fine when it’s setup or when you don’t manage the hosting, but God is it painful to self host an xmpp server. Then you have the clients that are all basically 10 years old at this point, except maybe Dino for linux. It even needs a special setup to work on restricted networks via port 80/443 because it wants port 5222 and 5223, and let me tell you, I’ve spent over a week trying to setup that reverse proxy, it was hell. I’ve never Hosted matrix so maybe it’s worse, but this isn’t the end of my gripes with xmpp. Most basic communication features in 2024 such as replies reactions quoting threads etc.etc. are unsupported ootb, and you need both a client that supports the extensions (often very slow to adapt “new” standards AND a server that has enabled the plugin for that feature.
Xmpp is plain old, and like many like to think, no xmpp was not “triple-E’d”, people simply stopped using it because it’s really inconvenient and the UX is horrible.
You are in for a world of pain regarding Matrix if you think xmpp is painful to host. Compared to hosting a Matrix server, XMPP is very pain-free to host. Sure, it takes a slight bit of effort to understand that there are other protocols than HTTP, but beyond that that initial learning curve, XMPP servers are extremely hassle free.
And you must have used extremely outdated clients. All the modern ones (which there are plenty) support replies and reactions etc. ootb. Let me guess, you only tried Pidgin? That client hasn’t been updated for xmpp in 15 years or so, and is by far the worst.
XMPP Works fine when it’s setup or when you don’t manage the hosting, but God is it painful to self host an xmpp server.
I recommend you use snikket if you’re having trouble selecting plugins, because it has everything you need out of the box and its super easy to setup.
It even needs a special setup to work on restricted networks via port 80/443 because it wants port 5222 and 5223,
Isn’t that just a configuration in prosody / snikket? What implementation did you use that didn’t let you configure this? Or are you expecting major implementations to default to port 80/443? Because that would be quite problematic.
Most basic communication features in 2024 such as replies reactions quoting threads etc.etc. are unsupported ootb, and you need both a client that supports the extensions (often very slow to adapt “new” standards AND a server that has enabled the plugin for that feature.
This is already supported by the major clients. I know for sure that conversations on android (and I suppose the many clients based on it) supports it. For server implementations, it is available out of the box on snikket, and it is a plugin you have to enable on prosody.
autonomoususer@lemmy.world
on 29 Oct 23:41
nextcollapse
It’s for voice, so that your mic is only active when you press an activation button. It’s how most PC games do it, and I would say it’s how most folks on PC use voice. It’s honestly a pretty basic feature, and super frustrating that it seems not to be a priority.
autonomoususer@lemmy.world
on 30 Oct 20:14
collapse
secret300@lemmy.sdf.org
on 30 Oct 01:10
nextcollapse
All I need is a client that looks and feels like discord to replicate voice channels and I will switch to matrix and host my own instance
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
on 30 Oct 03:34
nextcollapse
Yep, need a fork of revolt that uses Matrix 2.0 as a backend and I can get my friends to switch
hankskyjames777@thebrainbin.org
on 30 Oct 10:36
collapse
Matrix 2.0ActivityPub
Point proven before i could add: The chats should be encrypted (there's an FEP somewhere)
Edit: now they made my point look wrong (it's actually right), heres the sup server source code on how they implement it themselves: https://github.com/thesupapp/server
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
on 30 Oct 18:55
collapse
They’re two different protocols built for two very different forms of communication.
hankskyjames777@thebrainbin.org
on 31 Oct 04:49
collapse
But it does support chats/DMs, and there was an FEP for chat encryption
We mostly use it privately, there are also a handful of software communities too that takes advantage of bridging.
Personally, I don’t care about Nazis, they come for the same reason I do, privacy and place to speak. I don’t have to let there negative disposition color the software.
I’m ignorant about matrix, what is better in matrix than xmpp?
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
on 30 Oct 19:13
collapse
In XMPP, e2e encryption (just like everything else) is an optional extension. So in practice half the clients don’t support e2ee, half support different version of e2ee (can’t talk to each other) and pretty much all e2ee are likely full of holes since there are too many implementations to review.
In Matrix, e2ee is in a library that all clients can use, so while it is not Signal, it provides decent security.
everypizza@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 30 Oct 16:38
nextcollapse
no it’s not lmao none of the mentioned mscs are merged (maybe except for one?)
threaded - newest
I’d use Matrix but the last time I jumped on all the chats were dead and the ones I had joined had all been spammed with CSAM.
Might need to find more active communities?
The spam thing is annoying, but is a result of anyone being able to join a room and just upload images.
Really wish the large rooms would just disable image uploads, or use a bot to police new users a bit.
I’m pretty much since the beginning on Matrix. I have never experienced any questionable content. Large chats (thousands of users) have some spam problems, but the spammers banned quickly and the posts are being removed.
What am I doing right?
Not joining the rooms Element suggests on its own client? Element will show you a list of suggested, popular rooms to join, and a fuckton of these are overrun by spammers and worse. If Matrix has basically zero ability to curate these rooms outside of “here’s what’s got the most members”, then it absolutely should not in any capacity be recommending them, let alone as a way to get started for new users. It’s fucking ridiculous, and before you say “Well why should they be expected to curate the rooms they suggest?”, imagine the fucking disaster Discord would have on its hands if it started recommending servers, and several of its top 100 claimed to be related to popular FOSS applications but were actually completely unmoderated and filled with CSAM and Bitcoin scams.
just this week I’ve had multiple random matrix accounts start a chat with me to post an Imgur link with some Hitler bs. I assume they just chose random members of one or more fediverse related public matrix rooms to send that to. they probably just do this with random public rooms and the fediverse relation didn’t matter.
Wow you weren’t kidding lol. I watched the 2.0 demo and at this timestamp there’s a CSAM-related room title that Matthew was invited to (at the top of the right window). Granted it’s probably someone stream-sniping, but it goes to show that there’s apparently active bad actors trying to interfere.
Yeah, “Matrix as IRC” with general interest rooms is an unmonitored cesspool. “Matrix as IM” for staying in touch with mates is doing just fine.
But then what’s the benefit to Signal? Just that it’s decentralized?
Decentralization actually can be really powerful to give you a backup even if you prefer Signal; Signal’s servers very infrequently go down, but when they do, you entirely lose that channel for an unpredictable amount of time.
You can’t know with certainty on Signal that the client and the server are actually keeping your messages encrypted at rest, you have to trust them.
With Matrix, if you self host, you are the one in control.
Isn’t Signal E2E encrypted? How would it be able to decrypt them?
I assume you also have to trust the servers which the accounts you’re messaging are stored on. (Although there are real situations where all users will be on the same server, where this is obviously a great benefit.)
This is untrue. By design, messages are never decrypted on servers when end-to-end encryption is in use. They would have to break the encryption first, because they don’t have the keys.
That is certainly an improvement over Signal, yeah.
Some advantages are listed in this /c/Technology comment:
lemmy.sdf.org/comment/15398090
I’m very excited for this! Granted, I do wish they’d stop “announcing” Matrix 2.0, but I think the release of SSS alone is reason enough for celebration.
I have sync issues with even Slack or WhatsApp when I use an old device that hasn’t updated in a while - Matrix’s new sync scheme is genuinely fantastic and fixes all the issues my aging synapse server was having (4+ year server means those initial syncs on log-in could tak upwards of 10 minutes).
Now I just want Element Call to work with my pre-existing accounts and then I’ll be ready for the next Matrix 2.0 announcement 😂
Huge!
Definitely
Still don’t understand the need for matrix when xmpp is a much more battle tested standard, far more lightweight, way less complex, and easier to make clients for.
It’s the issues with XMPP’s spec: you don’t just use XMPP, you use XMPP + your favorite optional spec implementations.
If your friends aren’t on the same server/client combo then you won’t be able to communicate with them (effectively).
I loved XMPP, still do, but haven’t used it in years. If it were to get a single, matrix-style “spec release” (think an aggregation of existing features into one collection) that contains/requires a bunch of modern chat features I’ve come to expect from programs, then I could see it potentially having a resurgence.
You should try it again instead of spreading very outdated info about it. All major clients and server implementations have more or less feature parity and interoperate fine these days (and yes there are yearly complicance suites for XMPP that are exactly what you are asking for). What you are saying was true 10+ years ago when Matrix didn’t even exist yet, and Matrix has very similar issues with different client and server combinations these days.
Sorry, what’s the issue exactly? You called it an issue and I fail to see the problem. The X in XMPP stands for “extensible”, so it is being used precisely as intended, so that is still XMPP.
You could use your favorite extensions if you want, but all up-to-date implementations follow the standard defined by XMPP, and it includes all features of a modern messaging experience
You have to be going out of your way to have a non-compliant server or client. This isn’t really an issue that happens.
That’s how it is today though! I see the issue, you said you haven’t tried it in years. Admittedly, I only started with XMPP 2 years ago but haven’t had any of the issues you mentioned. Not sure when this became the status quo, but it is pretty awesome. Maybe it is worth trying again :)
I don’t agree with this.
Can you please explain why? A quick look at the spec for both protocols shows you that matrix is literally a hundred times more complex, so I don’t understand the basis of the contrary. The matrix creators have shown they are okay with increased complexity under the pretext of a more complete experience, but in reality, XMPP has achieved the same features with far less complexity.
If you’re speaking about self hosting, again, I don’t see how, as matrix is notorious for self hosting issues. XMPP’s snikket works out of the box and has all the commonly used features and plugins pre-baked. The underlying prosody implementation is a step down, but is also quite easy as long as you know what plugins and options to activate (and if you don’t, then use snikket).
I don’t want to defend Matrix. I agree that it is not stable and lightweight. However, I believe it is simpler than XMPP. Wanna set up a server? Synapse. Need a client? Element. The default softwares are easy for new users to discover.
Also, the fact that Matrix has a single protocol means that in theory all servers and clients can work with each other (Although I know we are far from that at the moment). It is much better than XMPP’s XEPs in terms of simplicity.
It’s not that I don’t like XMPP. I want a stable, encrypted, federated messaging platform. However, in terms of money and motivation, Matrix seems to be closer to that right now.
With all due respect, this is a very biased view
Wanna set up a server? Prosody (which has a hassle free out of the box experience through snikket)
Need a client? Conversations
The default softwares are easy to use for new users.
For matrix, however, you are forced to use synapse. You complain that xmpp is not a single protocol, but in reality, all the major implementations are compatible. Can you say the same about matrix? The other implementations aren’t even close to achieving this.
Xmpp’s extensions are a powerful feature, and the issues you think it presents do not exist with xmpp anymore, but is actually the status quo for Matrix.
When I decided to try XMPP, I had to do a lot of research to decide which applications I should use for the server and client. I did not experience this in Matrix. And yes, I know Matrix is not stable. I am not against that. It’s just easier to get on board.
If we told two people to use these two software independently, they would start using Matrix much more faster than XMPP. I think this is enough to call it uncomplicated.
Also, would you recommend Snikket server (or Prosody) for 1:1, group calls and screen sharing?
Answering this first so it doesn’t get buried down. Screen sharing wouldn’t be supported by xmpp since its just messaging, but I believe Jitsi has that feature. But for the rest, snikket and conversations (for android) I would recommend, yes.
Whatever is the first answer you get from a web search should be fine. Most sources recommend conversations for client, but all the other recommendations you’ll see are good too. For server, the easiest to setup is snikket, but all the other and up to date implementations should work okay, although they might need some configuration if you want all the modern messaging features.
Why do you think so? Let’s assume a user who doesn’t self host. XMPP clients are far more stable and error free, whereas matrix has random issues every now and then, especially with encryption and public groups.
XMPP clients are a lot more customizable and come in different models. Matrix has only one client that works well (and some forks of it that look roughly the same). I’d say that’s a win for XMPP for new users.
Now let’s say it’s a self hosting user. I don’t need to say much here, matrix is notorious for self hosting issues, and being a massive resource hog. XMPP, you have snikket, which works out of the box without issues and can be hosted on a raspberry pi even.
I may be biased here, so I urge you to tell me, in what way would a new user adopt matrix faster? I can tell you one. Matrix has corporate funding and has managed to advertise better. That’s their only win.
And to use it with a similar feature set, everyone is using different extensions which also have to be supported by the clients. I know there is this one server implementation (name escapes me at the moment) and Conversations on the client side, but it’s hardly the standard and we’re not really talking about plain XMPP then anymore.
The same is true if you use a Matrix server other than Synapse and a client other than Element. If fact these days the spec incompatibilities are way worse on Matrix than on XMPP.
Have you used XMPP recently and ran into the issue of non-obscure servers, clients, or self-hostable implementations using different extensions or not supporting them? (I actually haven’t experienced this even on the obscure ones, but can’t confirm for all of them). Please do not make that accusation, because that I’d really not what happens in reality.
Why not when… It literally is? And all major implementations follow it? That is by definition a standard.
Why not? “extensible” is in the name. It is meant to be extended. The protocol is being used exactly as planned and intended.
XMPP Works fine when it’s setup or when you don’t manage the hosting, but God is it painful to self host an xmpp server. Then you have the clients that are all basically 10 years old at this point, except maybe Dino for linux. It even needs a special setup to work on restricted networks via port 80/443 because it wants port 5222 and 5223, and let me tell you, I’ve spent over a week trying to setup that reverse proxy, it was hell. I’ve never Hosted matrix so maybe it’s worse, but this isn’t the end of my gripes with xmpp. Most basic communication features in 2024 such as replies reactions quoting threads etc.etc. are unsupported ootb, and you need both a client that supports the extensions (often very slow to adapt “new” standards AND a server that has enabled the plugin for that feature.
Xmpp is plain old, and like many like to think, no xmpp was not “triple-E’d”, people simply stopped using it because it’s really inconvenient and the UX is horrible.
You are in for a world of pain regarding Matrix if you think xmpp is painful to host. Compared to hosting a Matrix server, XMPP is very pain-free to host. Sure, it takes a slight bit of effort to understand that there are other protocols than HTTP, but beyond that that initial learning curve, XMPP servers are extremely hassle free.
And you must have used extremely outdated clients. All the modern ones (which there are plenty) support replies and reactions etc. ootb. Let me guess, you only tried Pidgin? That client hasn’t been updated for xmpp in 15 years or so, and is by far the worst.
I recommend you use snikket if you’re having trouble selecting plugins, because it has everything you need out of the box and its super easy to setup.
Isn’t that just a configuration in prosody / snikket? What implementation did you use that didn’t let you configure this? Or are you expecting major implementations to default to port 80/443? Because that would be quite problematic.
This is already supported by the major clients. I know for sure that conversations on android (and I suppose the many clients based on it) supports it. For server implementations, it is available out of the box on snikket, and it is a plugin you have to enable on prosody.
Push-To-Talk when?
That’s up to clients to implement, not part of the protocol.
But yeah its kinda dumb its not a thing in element
That would be huge and would make me and my friends switch from mumble/discord to matrix. However, i fear that high latency may be an issue.
What’s push to talk and why is it such a great feature?
It’s for voice, so that your mic is only active when you press an activation button. It’s how most PC games do it, and I would say it’s how most folks on PC use voice. It’s honestly a pretty basic feature, and super frustrating that it seems not to be a priority.
lemmy.world/post/18078903
All I need is a client that looks and feels like discord to replicate voice channels and I will switch to matrix and host my own instance
Yep, need a fork of revolt that uses Matrix 2.0 as a backend and I can get my friends to switch
Matrix 2.0ActivityPubPoint proven before i could add: The chats should be encrypted (there's an FEP somewhere)
Edit: now they made my point look wrong (it's actually right), heres the sup server source code on how they implement it themselves: https://github.com/thesupapp/server
They’re two different protocols built for two very different forms of communication.
But it does support chats/DMs, and there was an FEP for chat encryption
Sup software does this: https://github.com/thesupapp/server
FWIW it’s being worked on commet.chat
I really like their permissions system
This looks so nice and very promising. You’ve raised my hopes
It’s not exactly like discord but cinny looks nice imo
why do you want terrible ui
Old discord when it first came out was nice
twice the nazi pedophiles as before
We need to ban spoons because they are nazi pedophiles’ preferred tool for eating soup.
It’s software.
You could install it on a server and run a private room for your family(my usecase).
Nazis also meet in dark alleyways. Should we ban dark alleyways? No, we should probably illuminate them and decorate them a little.
We mostly use it privately, there are also a handful of software communities too that takes advantage of bridging.
Personally, I don’t care about Nazis, they come for the same reason I do, privacy and place to speak. I don’t have to let there negative disposition color the software.
Best chatting app
I’m ignorant about matrix, what is better in matrix than xmpp?
In XMPP, e2e encryption (just like everything else) is an optional extension. So in practice half the clients don’t support e2ee, half support different version of e2ee (can’t talk to each other) and pretty much all e2ee are likely full of holes since there are too many implementations to review.
In Matrix, e2ee is in a library that all clients can use, so while it is not Signal, it provides decent security.
no it’s not lmao none of the mentioned mscs are merged (maybe except for one?)
The Matrix Reloaded