five-c-d
commented
5 years ago @Meteor0id nice to see you :-) Agree 100%. There has been some discussion about a couple of ways to accomplish what you are describing, over in the IM+VoIP area, and also over in the browser area.
pros-n-cons? huge comparison-table? both? neither?
The main suggestions are to setup either 1. some kind of pros-n-cons bulleted list, for the top3 tools at least, instead of blurbs 2. some kind of comparison-table with sortable columns, and filterable-search-capability, based on a little javascript ... these would give in-depth info about what the main privacy-features of each tool were, and also of key functionality-differences 3. maybe both of those, top3 listings get the main pros-n-cons of each, then a big comparison-table at the bottom of the category with gory details Example: * wireapp: stores all metadata on server, phone-num first but option for email-only (encourages both though), * signalapp: stores three pieces of metadata on server with sgx enclaves protecting the addressbooks, phone-num only but can be any telco-num (not necessarily *your* cellnum), * riotim: stores all metadata on server but self-host mitigates that significantly, email-first but phone-num also allowed for 2FA methinks, * jami: serverless architecture, but OpenDHT bootstrap nodes, optional SIP num possible (not required -- can use RingCx hashnum as sole identifier), optional ethereum-blockchain usernames, however (at least in the olden days with SIP nums methinks) maybe some kind of server-side contact-list * ricochet: (warning: dormant project requires hand-installing own dependencies), serverless architectures with hashnums as identifiers and TorNetwork for anonymity, no emails, no phones, no usernames/nicknames besides the hashnums Whether that info would go in a pros-n-cons list, or in a comparison-table, would just depend on how terse it could be made, and how critical metadata-resistance was. Social-networking would also have a metadata-thing, but it would be different because the category is distinct; with encrypted messengers the metadata is *possible* to keep private, with social networking tools that are meant for public consumption/broadcasts/discussions it is far more difficult (and most don't attempt).
we can't explain each platform all the way,
Yes, and this brings up the question of, how do we efficiently decide what to highlight and what to leave unsaid? I'm thus working (offline as yet) on a primitive github-based e-voting scheme #848 to help prioritize which of the proposed pros, cons, and comparison-table-columns, make sense to provide the readership explicitly, and which to let them research on their own. We don't want to make the listings so chock-full of gory details the everyday readership runs in terror :-) But I definitely agree that the listings needs more details than a couple sentences of "this tool is awesome" because it is hard to tell which tools to look into more deeply. They are all awesome, or at least, worthMentioning... but how do they difer? Site currently does not say, and needs to give as least SOME kind of indication.
p.s. Related is the proposal to split things into sections, #880 == top of the page aimed at the everyday enduser audience with some simplified pros-n-cons and ONLY low-hassle high-usability tools mentioned, bottom of the page aimed at hardcore privacy-folks willing to go the extra mile, i.e. people who will appreciate a giant comparison-table rather than be afraid of it, and list all tools regardless of the hassle they entail (but indicate the hassle-level with some kind of "this is a twoWizard tool to install but a oneWizard tool to use" type of thing).
Description:
Currently there are 3 social networks listed and one more is mentioned. The descriptive text on privacytools.io does describe some philosophy behind each network, but falls short for people looking to make an actual choice: it is not listed for what use cases these networks are designed, how difficult they are to set up, which features they support, what they look like, etc.
The use case is not clearly presented. The features and limitations are not mapped out.
Yes, privacytools.io has as its first priority to explain why one platform is more private than another, but when someone comes to the site looking for an alternative, there is a very high threshold of research and trail and error he has to go through to pic the platform of his needs.
Although we can't explain each platform all the way, we can provide more information, so a user can judge whether a platform is suited for his use case.