>calls itself secure
>encrypts only the message itself
>requires the sharing of your personal phone number in order to establish contact with anyone else
>who you're chatting with and when are considered "metadata" and are not encrypted
Seriously if anybody can know who you're talking with (with their actual phone number for identification) and when you're doing so, without knowing the actual message content, then it's as good as well that there's no encryption in the first place.
Why is this piece of shit lauded as "secure" and "privacy-oriented"? You're literally leaking almost everything with it.
ISIS pls go
>>58712894
>requires the sharing of your personal phone number
This is where your logic fell apart
because the alternative is sms
>>58712894
Find a more secure messaging app.
I'll wait.
>>58712938
>because the alternative is sms
>what is Riot/Matrix
>>58712975
>what is riot/matrix
exactly
>communicating on electronic devices that aren't burners.
>>58712894
Almost all messaging softwares that calls itself "secure" are usually anything but.
Look at Telegram. Literally worse encryption than WhatsApp.
I wouldn't trust Signal with its stupid dependency on Google push services. Wait for Riot to mature --- going decentralised and encrypted at the same time is the only way forward.
>>58712975
This.
The app needs a lot of work, for instance it should be using fucking fragments, but it does work and you can create your own matrix servers, so it's 100% foss through and through.
Surespot. End to end encryption.
>>58712975
Started using this recently. Love it except for two things
1. Voice and video calls fail most of the time in my encrypted room with my gf
2. My web browser clears cookies on exit which registers as a new device when I text from the computer, so the people I text constantly need to verify my "new" device or else they see a yellow exclamation point or something)
But it does seem secure and has a bright future