• ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 hours ago

    So… Not because “that’s a privacy tool, conducting public business there is antidemocratic”.

    Instead because, “look at how those Americans use it wrongly, we don’t want to be like them.”

    . . .

    Huh. I have mixed feelings about this.

    • Deckname@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      No not really. More a “its not the right tool for the job” signal is a messenger for private use, EU is working on / has a matrix based messenger that is more suited.

      You still want encryption but also central user management etc. (Which hopefully also includes archiving…).

      • Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Sounds like a decentralized encrypted messaging platform is needed.

        And when you need the highest trust, you just need to make sure you and the people you are talking to are all on trusted servers.

        so governments would use their own gov.eu server or something, and only communicate sensitive info to others on that network so the info never leaves that server

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Sounds like a decentralized encrypted messaging platform is needed.

          Decentralized probably isn’t desirable for this use case; self-hosted is. When designing something for that purpose based on a decentralized protocol like Matrix, it’s probably desirable to mandate that the most sensitive conversations take place using a server with decentralization disabled and a client restricted to using only that server.