search

privacytools / privacytools.io

🛡🛠 You are being watched. Protect your privacy against global mass surveillance.
https://www.privacyguides.org
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
3.11k stars 388 forks source link

Merge IM, VoIP & teamchat into communication tools (was: Why do we have a VoIP section?) #1078

Closed Mikaela closed 4 years ago

Mikaela commented 4 years ago

See https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1078#issuecomment-518203744. Original text below the line.

I didn't realize it exists (or at least I didn't look at it) until it was mentioned at #1067. https://www.privacytools.io/software/voip/

It lists:

The only different apps from instant messengers are: Linphone, Jitsi [Meet], Tox and Jami. Why are Signal and Wire on both pages? Why does Wire have different warning on both of them? (I think the warning text differed before I PRed the current text to instant messengers.)

Why Linphone, Tox and Jami aren't considered as instant messengers, but are instead VoIP apps? I have used all three and they all include chat functionality (and so does Jitsi [Meet] except that with it you are in call all the time, which used as a definition of VoIP app would make only it and Mumble the only real VoIP apps, maybe Spreed also (I don't remember)).

Suggestions:

I think the existence of a separate VoIP page with duplicate software results VoIP being less maintained and causing inconsistency (like already happened with Wire).

nitrohorse commented 4 years ago

I think the existence of a separate VoIP page with duplicate software results VoIP being less maintained and causing inconsistency (like already happened with Wire).

Yeah, good call out; I agree. I think we should merge the VoIP page into the IM page.

Mikaela commented 4 years ago

Comments from #1067:

@JonahAragon :

Thinking about @five-c-d's #999 (comment), would it perhaps make more sense to list Team Chat as a separate section on the existing Instant Messengers page? Or merge IM, VoIP, and this category into one "Communication Tools" page (or something) with separate subheadings for each of them?

@nitrohorse :

@JonahAragon I can see having sub-sections under a "Communication Tools" umbrella page being overall more helpful and easier to navigate and compare/contrast. I like that idea.

me:

Sounds good to me, that page would just be {% include sections/teamchat.html %} for the separate categories?

additional thinking:

Do we have jekyll_redirect for redirecting the old pages to the new one?

jonaharagon commented 4 years ago

Do we have jekyll_redirect for redirecting the old pages to the new one?

We can add 301 redirects in the nginx server config separately, which would probably be preferable to HTML meta redirects.

five-c-d commented 4 years ago

"Communication tools" is vague, it would include things like email, firefoxSend, bitMessage, and so on. This new combo-section should be called "messengers" methinks.

They are intended to be replacements for FbMessenger, iMessages, gMessages, etc. Skype is a proprietary product that defined the category; IRC, and to some degree Zephyr and AIM and ICQ and MSN, were the precursors. SMS for texting, MMS for photos&groupchats, and PSTN/GSM for voice-calls and voice-mail / voiceNotes, are the telecom industry competition.

The key distinction -- as with tutanota and protonmail versus market leader gmail -- is that all the messengers in the privacyToolsIO listings are private messengers, which offer end2end crypto (not mere client-to-server crypto) which is on by default, have various degrees of metadata-resistance, have code which is audited for security, and in general are useful tools in fighting mass surveillance... whereas by contrast SMS and gmail actually facilitate surveillance.

Mikaela commented 4 years ago

How about real time communication?

five-c-d commented 4 years ago

That is more precise than "communication tools" but has the downside it is not really correct; the big advantage of Signalapp / Proteus / OMEMO / MegOlm / etc compared to the OffTheRecord protocol of yesteryear, is they are async. If you want a two-way chat, both parties no longer must be online simultaneously, in 2013+ or thereabouts

This async nature of modern protocols has a critical advantage when it comes to groupchats: with 9-member groupchats OTR is very difficult, and with 99-member groupchat nigh-impossible. There are still apps around which are non-async, such as Briar, but most software takes advantage of a combination of realtime (webrtc-cryptocalls) and async (teamchats with voiceNotes and other file-attachments can work for very large teamsizes).

Wikipedia calls the category "advanced IM" -- featuring 'texting, files, link preview, VoIP, video chat' -- when on laptops, and calls it "messaging apps" when smartphone-based -- featuring 'chat, groupchat, files, voice call, video call'. However, in addition to nigh-identical feature-lists, they also list the same software as category-examples for both: FbWhatsApp/FbMsgr, WeChat/QQ, Skype, iMessage/FaceTime, Viber, Snapchat, Line, Telegram, Discord, Slack. Amusingly, there is an ongoing edit-war to combine the two articles :-) Both wikipedia terms make a half-hearted attempt to split out 'Enterprise IM' and 'Workplace Groupchat' software, but only half-hearted.

dngray commented 4 years ago

This would close https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/746

Mikaela commented 4 years ago

What do you think of #1136 which you can see in action at https://deploy-preview-1136--privacytools-io.netlify.com/software/real-time-communication/ ?

Comments there, please.