add partial centralization warning for Jami #1752
Labels
No Label
🔍🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#1752
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "jamiwarning"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Description
Resolves: #1727
Changes:
Check List
I understand that by not opening an issue about a software/service/similar addition/removal, this pull request will be closed without merging.
I have read and understand the contributing guidelines.
The project is Free Libre and/or Open Source Software
Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!
Built with commit
a5f05411f2
https://deploy-preview-1752--privacytools-io.netlify.com
Sorry I didn't know the syntax for links in a label, now it's fixed :-)
The preview looks great so far, ill leave a review tommorow!
I wonder if there could be any clearer link
@Mikaela do you mean something like this? This is linked by the first reply in the issue I linked in the warning, so from the issue, the user can easily go there. I chose the issue because it's a lot less verbose and it specifically addresses how to workaround this issue (ie, how to self-host), whereas the blog post while being maybe cleaner only describe the issue without providing any solution.
Also I just noticed they say in the blog post that:
Maybe we should add that in the description (that it's always end-to-end encrypted)?
Seems like a good idea to me.
I'd probably do this for consistency, seeing as we used "E2EE" elsewhere after explaining it.
Would it be possible to say in the warning what exactly is not decentralized?
@Mikaela Here is the list:
If you think it's not too long, I can add it in the warning.
Oh, I see, yes, that is too long. What would be the equivalent decentralized list?
Oh, tough question, I think that's still a topic of research. I think Session (Loki Messenger) implements workarounds for some of these: