Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
This is neat but it has plenty of flaws.<p>I wish the definitions were spelled out. It says Signal isn&#x27;t &quot;anonymous&quot;, which I assume means &quot;uses a phone number to find peers&quot;. And it has the usual feature matrix problem: sure XMPP &quot;does E2E&quot;. But what does that mean? It supports S&#x2F;MIME. Do you want S&#x2F;MIME? (You don&#x27;t.) It supports OTR, TS and SCIMP too: but you need to be an expert in messaging schemes to understand how those are different. None of them implement double ratchets. None of them implement even close to the privacy features Signal has implemented. But on this diagram it is clearly better because there is more green and less red.<p>Another example: &quot;open server&quot; and &quot;on-premise&quot; says nothing about whether or not you really want to run one of those instances. It just says that hypothetically one could.<p>In terms of errors: the linked &quot;E2E audit&quot; for Telegram did not audit E2E at all, and in fact only cites sources saying that it&#x27;s probably fucked. Wire has a real audit that isn&#x27;t listed. WhatsApp uses Signal, just with fewer of the.<p>Use WhatsApp to talk to normal people. Use Signal for nerds, and... probably Matrix for group collab? Or maybe stop caring about secure messages for group collab so much :-)