Skip to content

Is Matrix cooked?

Technology
37 20 0
  • In today's episode of Kill The Messenger, Matrix co-founder Matthew Hodgson reveals how full of bullshit is the writer of the original article.

    The messages were published in the Office of the Matrix.org Foundation room: https://matrix.to/#%2F!sWpnrYUMmaBrlqfRdn%3Amatrix.org%2F%24XpQe-vmtB7j0Uy1TPCvMVCSCW63Xxw_jwy3fflw7EMQ%3Fvia=matrix.org&via=element.io

    https://paper.wf/alexia/matrix-is-cooked is fascinatingly incorrect

    Until the 6th of November 2023 when they—in their words—moved to a different repository and to the AGPL license. In reality, the Foundation did not know this was coming, and a huge support net was pulled away under their feet.

    fwiw, the Foundation had a front-row seat in the fact that Element (as incorporated by the folks who created Matrix) had donated $$M to the Foundation over the years, but wasn't going to survive if it kept giving all its work away as apache-licensed code - which in turn would have been catastrophic for the Foundation.

    Yes, the high expenses for the Matrix.org homeserver are largely because they are still managed by Element, just not as donated work but instead like with any other customer.

    nope, Element passes the hardware costs (and a fraction of the people costs) of running the matrix.org server to the Foundation without any overheads or markup at all.

    Either way it shows that Element is seemingly cashing in on selling ,Matrix to governments and B2B as a SaaS solution without it going back to the foundation

    Element has literally put tens of millions into the foundation, and is continuing to do so - while some of the costs get passed to the Foundation, Element donates a bunch too (e.g. by funding a large chunk of the Matrix conference as the anchor sponsor, and by donating time all over the place to help support trust & safety etc)

    At the same time I can't help but think that this could have been prevented. Even Matthew himself recognizes that putting the future on Matrix on the line with VC funding and alike was not the best idea for the health of Matrix.

    No, even Matthew knows that Matrix would never have been funded without routing the VC funding from Element into... building Matrix. We tried to fund it originally purely as a non-profit, but failed (just as it's a nightmare to raise non-profit for the Foundation today even now that Matrix exists and is successful!). If you need to raise serious $ for an ambitious project, you either need to get lucky with a billionaire (as Signal did with Brian Acton) or you have to raise on the for-profit side. Perhaps it would have have been best for Matrix to grow organically, but I suspect that if it did, it would have failed miserably - instead, it succeeded because we already had a team of ~12 people who could crack on and jump-start it if they could work on it as their dayjob; the team who subsequently founded Element.

    Ultimately, for-profit companies will do what makes them profit, not what's the best option. Unless the best option happens to coincide with making the most profit.

    No, Element is not profitable. Nor is it trying to maximise profit. Right now it's trying to survive and get sustainable and profit-neutral (i.e. break-even) - while doing everything it can to help keep Matrix healthy and successful too (given if Matrix fails, Element fails too).

    Unfortunately, supporting the foundation through anything more than “in spirit” and a platinum membership is out of their budget, apparently. I think that morally they owe a lot more than that.

    wow.

    the FUD level is absolutely astonishing, and I really wonder what the genesis of this is

    so, absolutely, spectacularly, depressing

    this, my friends, is why we can't have nice things.

    In response to an other person suggesting that the publisher is also known as a reasonable person on the platform:

    Interesting, the matrix handle that seems behind this blog seems always to have been quite a reasonable person

    somewhat why i’m wondering what the backstory is, and whether this is an unfortunate example of spicy lies outpacing the boring truth

    I self host matrix. Should anyone who’s not on the foundation’s home server care? Do these changes affect anyone else?

  • In today's episode of Kill The Messenger, Matrix co-founder Matthew Hodgson reveals how full of bullshit is the writer of the original article.

    The messages were published in the Office of the Matrix.org Foundation room: https://matrix.to/#%2F!sWpnrYUMmaBrlqfRdn%3Amatrix.org%2F%24XpQe-vmtB7j0Uy1TPCvMVCSCW63Xxw_jwy3fflw7EMQ%3Fvia=matrix.org&via=element.io

    https://paper.wf/alexia/matrix-is-cooked is fascinatingly incorrect

    Until the 6th of November 2023 when they—in their words—moved to a different repository and to the AGPL license. In reality, the Foundation did not know this was coming, and a huge support net was pulled away under their feet.

    fwiw, the Foundation had a front-row seat in the fact that Element (as incorporated by the folks who created Matrix) had donated $$M to the Foundation over the years, but wasn't going to survive if it kept giving all its work away as apache-licensed code - which in turn would have been catastrophic for the Foundation.

    Yes, the high expenses for the Matrix.org homeserver are largely because they are still managed by Element, just not as donated work but instead like with any other customer.

    nope, Element passes the hardware costs (and a fraction of the people costs) of running the matrix.org server to the Foundation without any overheads or markup at all.

    Either way it shows that Element is seemingly cashing in on selling ,Matrix to governments and B2B as a SaaS solution without it going back to the foundation

    Element has literally put tens of millions into the foundation, and is continuing to do so - while some of the costs get passed to the Foundation, Element donates a bunch too (e.g. by funding a large chunk of the Matrix conference as the anchor sponsor, and by donating time all over the place to help support trust & safety etc)

    At the same time I can't help but think that this could have been prevented. Even Matthew himself recognizes that putting the future on Matrix on the line with VC funding and alike was not the best idea for the health of Matrix.

    No, even Matthew knows that Matrix would never have been funded without routing the VC funding from Element into... building Matrix. We tried to fund it originally purely as a non-profit, but failed (just as it's a nightmare to raise non-profit for the Foundation today even now that Matrix exists and is successful!). If you need to raise serious $ for an ambitious project, you either need to get lucky with a billionaire (as Signal did with Brian Acton) or you have to raise on the for-profit side. Perhaps it would have have been best for Matrix to grow organically, but I suspect that if it did, it would have failed miserably - instead, it succeeded because we already had a team of ~12 people who could crack on and jump-start it if they could work on it as their dayjob; the team who subsequently founded Element.

    Ultimately, for-profit companies will do what makes them profit, not what's the best option. Unless the best option happens to coincide with making the most profit.

    No, Element is not profitable. Nor is it trying to maximise profit. Right now it's trying to survive and get sustainable and profit-neutral (i.e. break-even) - while doing everything it can to help keep Matrix healthy and successful too (given if Matrix fails, Element fails too).

    Unfortunately, supporting the foundation through anything more than “in spirit” and a platinum membership is out of their budget, apparently. I think that morally they owe a lot more than that.

    wow.

    the FUD level is absolutely astonishing, and I really wonder what the genesis of this is

    so, absolutely, spectacularly, depressing

    this, my friends, is why we can't have nice things.

    In response to an other person suggesting that the publisher is also known as a reasonable person on the platform:

    Interesting, the matrix handle that seems behind this blog seems always to have been quite a reasonable person

    somewhat why i’m wondering what the backstory is, and whether this is an unfortunate example of spicy lies outpacing the boring truth

    Sidenote, the modern web is so fucked because how am I supposed to teach a kid that I would trust the random website "paper.wtf" I have never seen before with literally "meow" randomly above their article MORE than businessinsider.com which is like at the top of every search result

  • I self host matrix. Should anyone who’s not on the foundation’s home server care? Do these changes affect anyone else?

    AFAIK it only affects the matrix.org server.

  • SimpleX Chat – Many suggested this and I will explicitly recommend against it due to the founder's positions on various topics. This includes being anti-vaxx, believing COVID-19 was a hoax, trans- and homophobia, climate denial; In the SimpleX Groupchat he's also been seen basically bootlicking trump a couple times, but I've lost receipts to that

    Unrelated to the main points I kind of always thought SimpleX seemed sketchy...

    Also there are not many competitors to Matrix. Just XMPP for the most part.
    SimpleX and Signal are not good at supporting chat rooms with large amounts of people. Telegram does it okay but isn’t decentralized.

  • I self host matrix. Should anyone who’s not on the foundation’s home server care? Do these changes affect anyone else?

    It doesn't affect you in the slightest, other than it might further fund Synapse's/the spec's development meaning your server might get new features.

  • While I understand the need for them to maintain a steady income, all I can think of is Discord’s Nitro when I think of this upcoming Premium account offering.

    Except the premium offering pretty much just relates to media upload limit. I'm honestly surprised that they even allowed people to upload as much as they do.

    Makes sense to limit free users (will also help with spam) if they're not drowning in VC money.

  • The author responded to this response. You can see that here.

    (This looks the same until you scroll down; you linked to a differen,t older version of the site that did not update the linked post)

    The response is less of a response, more of an explanation of their current feelings pertaining to matrix. Seems odd when Matthew made some clear, individual points that could've been addressed.

  • Why would you think a chat app has full write access to your disk?

    Because any programs have that access??

  • The author responded to this response. You can see that here.

    (This looks the same until you scroll down; you linked to a differen,t older version of the site that did not update the linked post)

    @WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works please update your link

  • Because any programs have that access??

    Again, no.

  • Because any programs have that access??

    Not sure what platform you're on but on Linux flatpak can limit access to files, and things like AppArmor can do that for any native app as well (though it can be pretty tedious to configure)

  • Again, no.

    how are programs denied that access? how is it that they can't do that?

    with the computers that I know, if I download a program, that'll be able to read, and also modify all the files that I have access to. this includes the ability to read the saved passwords from my browser, and to install browser addons without my consent or knowledge.

    what makes it so that it cannot happen on mainstream desktop computers?

  • Not sure what platform you're on but on Linux flatpak can limit access to files, and things like AppArmor can do that for any native app as well (though it can be pretty tedious to configure)

    on linux. flatpak. now, how mainstream is that setup exactly? are you saying that the issue I brought up does not apply to most of the people on the internet?

    it does not matter what platform I'm on. what matters is what do most people use. in the world where I live, most people use the windows operating system. there is no such protection at all. except when accounting for sandboxie and other obscure programs virtually no one knows about

  • how are programs denied that access? how is it that they can't do that?

    with the computers that I know, if I download a program, that'll be able to read, and also modify all the files that I have access to. this includes the ability to read the saved passwords from my browser, and to install browser addons without my consent or knowledge.

    what makes it so that it cannot happen on mainstream desktop computers?

    how are programs denied that access? how is it that they can't do that?

    Apps are typically given their own dedicated storage volume, and access to any other part of the filesystem requires permission from the user.

    this includes the ability to read the saved passwords from my browser, and to install browser addons without my consent or knowledge.

    WTF kind of computers are you using?

  • how are programs denied that access? how is it that they can't do that?

    Apps are typically given their own dedicated storage volume, and access to any other part of the filesystem requires permission from the user.

    this includes the ability to read the saved passwords from my browser, and to install browser addons without my consent or knowledge.

    WTF kind of computers are you using?

    Apps are typically given their own dedicated storage volume, and access to any other part of the filesystem requires permission from the user.

    uh, no? on smartphones, yes, but not on computers.

    and even on smartphones. the chat app does have access to your messages, as I originally said

    WTF kind of computers are you using?

    desktop.. computers? you probably heard about operating systems, like windows, and linux..

  • Apps are typically given their own dedicated storage volume, and access to any other part of the filesystem requires permission from the user.

    uh, no? on smartphones, yes, but not on computers.

    and even on smartphones. the chat app does have access to your messages, as I originally said

    WTF kind of computers are you using?

    desktop.. computers? you probably heard about operating systems, like windows, and linux..

    uh, no?

    Uh, yes.

    the chat app does have access to your messages, as I originally said

    What you originally said was gibberish, but I digress. The chat app is open source, so you can evaluate what it's doing with those messages for yourself.

  • Apps are typically given their own dedicated storage volume, and access to any other part of the filesystem requires permission from the user.

    uh, no? on smartphones, yes, but not on computers.

    and even on smartphones. the chat app does have access to your messages, as I originally said

    WTF kind of computers are you using?

    desktop.. computers? you probably heard about operating systems, like windows, and linux..

    uh, no? on smartphones, yes, but not on computers.

    That's not true. Most operating systems at least have filesystem permissions, and on a lot of Linux distros you additionally get AppArmor or PolKit to further restrict what files a program can read/write.

  • on linux. flatpak. now, how mainstream is that setup exactly? are you saying that the issue I brought up does not apply to most of the people on the internet?

    it does not matter what platform I'm on. what matters is what do most people use. in the world where I live, most people use the windows operating system. there is no such protection at all. except when accounting for sandboxie and other obscure programs virtually no one knows about

    I mentioned Linux specifically because something like this is the hardest to set up on Linux. I (wrongly) assumed that since you were complaining about it not existing, you were on a platform where setting these permissions up isn't straightforward. App-specific file-acess permissions are on MacOS out of the box as a configurable setting for all applications (in the system settings menu), and I'm pretty sure Windows 10/11 has something similar in its settings menu as well.

    Edit:
    Also, if we're being pedantic, this is also a setting on both Android and iOS, with Android displaying the option to change access pretty much every time you pick out a file.

  • Matrix has always been way too bulky for being a simple messenger. Imo their architecture was cooked from the start.

    But its not a simple messenger though. If you want something simple, IRC is always available for use.

  • 95 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Covert Web-to-App Tracking via Localhost on Android

    Technology technology
    3
    28 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    P
    That update though: "... completely removed..." I assume this is because someone at Meta realized this was a huge breach of trust, and likely quite illegal. Edit: I read somewhere that they're just being cautious about Google Play terms of service. That feels worse.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 50 Stimmen
    27 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    S
    Brother I live in western Europe and of the 6 supermarkets in my smallish city, 4 offer the handscanner. It's incredibly common here, and very convenient.
  • 8 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    roofuskit@lemmy.worldR
    Meta? Isn't that owned by alleged pedophile Mark Zuckerberg? I heard he was a pedo on Facebook.
  • 464 Stimmen
    133 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    B
    If an industry can't survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it's not a viable business. Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn't have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?
  • 2k Stimmen
    133 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    S
    Tokyo banned diesel motors in the late 90s. As far as I know that didn't kill Toyota. At the same time European car makers started to lobby for particle filters that were supposed to solve everything. The politics who where naive enough to believe them do share responsibility, but not as much as the european auto industry that created this whole situation. Also, you implies that laws are made by politicians without any intervention of the industries whatsoever. I think you know that it is not how it works.
  • 81 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    P
    I expect them to give shareholders and directors a haircut before laying off workers, yes. But we know Microsoft never does that, so they can go f themselves.