Understandable actually. Server maintenance costs money and if a 3rd party chat app; which significantly has more usage than other forms of social media; is trying to connect to the server, they have to handle that traffic too. Remember, it is not just about data size, but also the sheer volume of connection to handle.
I think the solution is just P2P with each peer acting as a relay to the other too. The protocol needs to be designed in such a way that no-one in the middle can reply to send false acknowledgement so as to prevent sybil attack or other attack where a malicious actor is a part of the network.
My point is basically that matrix/element is arguable the much more ethical chat solution because of its openess still with a focus on security.
Right, the rating list is generic, whereas it should be categorized. For example while iMessage is a walled garden, if the list was sorted by ease of use, it should be first, as it’s nearly zero-configuration for the end user and they get encrypted messaging. Matrix would be first on open access (if we weren’t counting SMS), because it’s available on so many platforms and clients. Signal probably wins on security, though I don’t know enough about it to verify that. So on and so forth
For example while iMessage is a walled garden, if the list was sorted by ease of use, it should be first
Should it, though? It requires the user to buy an Apple device.
