I have not found any news article on this on a whim. Because my friends and family, I need to use Facebook Messenger, and Messenger Lite was a OK client - lightweight, no unnecessary features, etc., compared to the regular Messenger app.

Now I’m a little torn, having a Meta app on my phone is already bad, but having to downgrade to the bloated Messenger app? Not sure I will make a change. What are your thoughts?

  • Ever since Facebook forced the separate Messenger app, I’ve refused to install it. Instead, when I see a message notification, I pop into a browser, head to Facebook.com and push the desktop version. While it’s clunky, I’ve never had to download Messenger.

  • zikk_transport2 ( zikk_transport2@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) deleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    3 years ago

    Install Telegram (or Signal before everyone downvotes me) for your family & friends. For me most of my friends & relatives migrated to it and using for chats between themselves.

    Bonus if you are good at programming and can make some very unique telegram bots that do some interesting stuff, like reporting local news.

    • cnnrduncan ( cnnrduncan@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 years ago

      Unfortunately FB Messenger is the defacto way to communicate in some countries - if I refused to use it I’d fail uni as I wouldn’t be able to communicate with group members, I wouldn’t be able to contact most of my family, and the number of friends I can talk to would drop to about 5 (of which most have recently had children and are thus a bit preoccupied)

    • dsmk ( dsmk@lemmy.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 years ago

      I use Telegram every day, but without end-to-end encryption (by default and on groups), it’s as private as Facebook Messenger. They can read everything. The only difference is that currently people trust them more than they trust Facebook, but everything turns to shit eventually.

      If Signal is too “boring” or no one uses it in your circles, try WhatsApp. Yes, it’s also from Meta, but at least comms are encrypted (same protocol as Signal) and a lot of people use it.

        • dsmk ( dsmk@lemmy.zip ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 years ago

          WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol. Is it as private as Signal? No, it “leaks” way more metadata. Have I personally checked if they’re encrypting messages? Also no, although others have. Is it possible that they’re doing something “funny” and no longer encrypt? Yes, but is there any suggestion or proof of that being the case?

          Should you use WhatsApp? No, but the suggestion above was to use Telegram, a service that doesn’t do end-to-end encryption by default and leaks the same type of data as WhatsApp. Going from Messenger to Telegram is a sideways move. From Messenger to WhatsApp would be at least a small upgrade (with the benefit of having more contacts there than Telegram, at least in some countries).

          I understand the point about it also being a Meta app. I guess the question is what do you trust more? Telegram and the people behind it with your plain text messages or a Meta app with end-to-end encryption? I don’t trust either, so I pick encryption.

          I’m not anti Telegram or anything like that. It’s a nice app, lots of features, smooth, etc, and I use it, but privacy was never their main priority.

          • Where can I get info on Telegram storing messages in plain text on their servers? I have asked and searched and all I have seen are hypotheticals but nothing concrete.

            I’ve read through the audit they had in 2020 where cloud chats are encrypted using the same MT Proto 2.0 which they also use for the secret chats (E2EE).

            The same way that evidence is available, I would also like to see the evidence of cloud chats stored in plain text and not encrypted.

            • dsmk ( dsmk@lemmy.zip ) 
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 years ago

              I didn’t say anything about them “storing messages in plain text”. I said that they don’t do E2EE by default and since they have the keys for the TLS that encrypts data in transit, they can read the content of your messages. Encrypting their drives - something that any decent service does - only protects you if someone “steals” a drive: Telegram has the keys and can obviously read the contents of their drives.

              I found this Kaspersky blog post which provides a nice tl;dr. They even make the same point as me:

              Let’s go straight to the root of the problem: Telegram is a unique messenger with two types of chats: regular and secret. Regular chats are not end-to-end encrypted. Only secret ones are.

              No other messenger does this: even the notorious WhatsApp, part of Mark Zuckerberg’s data-hungry empire, uses end-to-end encryption by default. The user doesn’t need to do anything at all, there are no special checkboxes or anything: messages are protected from all outsiders (including the service owners) right out of the box.

              […]

              This is not new. Back in 2015, Edward Snowden had this to say about Telegram’s defaults:

              I respect @durov, but Ptacek is right: @telegram’s defaults are dangerous. Without a major update, it’s unsafe. [source]

              To be clear, what matters is that the plaintext of messages is accessible to the server (or service provider), not whether it’s “stored.” [source]

              In practice, they’re no different from Messenger, Slack, Discord or a direct message on Reddit. Most messages on Telegram can be read by them, just like Google can read all messages in your Gmail.

              Why is Signal or WhatsApp better? Because they do E2EE for all messages. It doesn’t matter if they forget to encrypt their servers, all they see and store is encrypted messages. You hold the keys, not them.

              • You mentioned “plain text” specifically - where else would they be holding those plain texts?

                So far, there is no evidence to suggest your messages are stored in plain text. And in 2015, Telegram was using MTProto 1.0 for their cloud chat encryption and Secret Chats E2EE. It’s been about 5-6 years since they’ve upgraded to MTProto 2.0 which has been proven to be a sound encryption protocol.

                It was Moxie Marlinspike that also made the claim messages are stored in plain text on Telegram’s server with no evidence. And so far, the only thing we have are hypotheticals and nothing of substance to support that claim.

                The audit done in 2020 goes over how Telegram encrypts their cloud chats and those encryption keys are not stored on the same servers. While E2EE is preferable, the reason why Telegram works the way it does is because how messages are handled by default.

                Hopefully soon they will roll out Secret Group chats. But I do like we all have the option to use Telegram however we want.

                • dsmk ( dsmk@lemmy.zip ) 
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  If you (user 1) are talking with your friend (user 2) through me (telegram) and I have the encryption keys, then for me (telegram) communications are essentially in plain text. I can even encrypt them 100 times… I have the keys and can read your (user 1 + user 2) messages.

                  You’re again talking about storing messages (not sure why). Telegram might encrypt their storage (I never claimed they didn’t), but they have the keys and therefore can read what’s stored. They also have the keys for the messages, so there’s no hypotheticals or claims here: they have the keys for everything, so they can read everything.

                  E2EE is opt-in and currently only available for direct chats. Unless you manually start a “secret chat”, there’s no E2EE MTProto 2.0 to help you. They can read everything.

                  The audit done in 2020 goes over how Telegram encrypts their cloud chats and those encryption keys are not stored on the same servers. While E2EE is preferable, the reason why Telegram works the way it does is because how messages are handled by default.

                  So… Telegram has the keys to decrypt your messages?

                  I mean, it’s not hard to understand. The party that holds the keys can read the messages.

    • Suppoze ( Suppoze@beehaw.org ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 years ago

      You’re right, I did not even notice the persistent notification! What a unnecessarily annoying move. This deserved an early bird uninstall for me…

    • sab ( sab@kbin.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      At least on my phone I could swipe the notification a bit to the left to reveal the cog, “disable notifications”, and disable the “standard” category of notifications.

      In other news, there’s no way in hell I’m installing the full app. People texting me there will just have to wait until I’m by a computer.

      • varaki ( varaki@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yes, but that is the same notification category as your default one for messages, so disabling it will result in no message notifications at all.

    • Rentlar ( Rentlar@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yeah I just turned off every notification from Messenger Lite after seeing that. Next month I might just uninstall it completely, or opt for the Matrix bridge.

    • Mothra ( Mothra@mander.xyz ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’m also on the uninstall boat with y’all, for this reason. Lucky me, I haven’t used messenger in a year so when I saw the notification didn’t hesitate. Haven’t logged on FB in years so I doubt anyone will try to reach me there.

  • I swear my battery life improved after I uninstalled messenger for a while and got worse after reinstalling recently.

    I wouldn’t have installed it except I was in the process of getting back in touch with a few old friends. Was totally worth it for that.

    • tiwenty ( tiwenty@jlai.lu ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’m on the same page. I would prefer not having those apps installed or even an account, but my friends are more worth to me than my IT ideals.

      • WagesOf ( WagesOf@artemis.camp ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 years ago

        It’s too bad that your friendship isn’t more important than ten minutes of inconvenience for them to install a different app or to give you their actual phone number.

        • tiwenty ( tiwenty@jlai.lu ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          3 years ago

          I find that you’re making a lot of assumptions on my friendships based on my 4 lines comment.

          I do chat with my friends via SMS or phone cause I indeed have their number. But you can’t deny that SMS for group chats is pretty gruesome.

          Based on that, everybody is used to those popular chat apps and have their other group chats on them. Why would I make them change when they work for what’s intended? Privacy is the best argument, but they may not all care enough to not find it bothering. So I don’t bother ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        • Notnotmike ( Notnotmike@beehaw.org ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 years ago

          It’s exactly what social media platforms, particularly Facebook, want. They want you to feel locked in because your friends are there

          I don’t know why people don’t just use more SMS. You don’t need all the fancy bells and whistles, it shouldn’t change the conversation you’re having, especially with the gradual rollout of rich messages, and it has a wider audience than Facebook will ever have. More people have SMS than have Facebook

            • Notnotmike ( Notnotmike@beehaw.org ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 years ago

              Everyone outside of the U.S. almost assuredly still has SMS capabilities, it’s just not common utilized because everyone is already on WhatsApp or Telegram. It’s where their friends are, locking them into the ecosystem, which is exactly what I just said. And I would be willing to wager the only reason WhatsApp really got huge was because SMS hasn’t always been free to use and may still not be free in some countries and with some plans.

              Telegram, Signal and WhatsApp are fine, as for privacy how exactly are SMS better?

              I wasn’t speaking to privacy specifically, but where all your friends are.

              If you want privacy, then you shouldn’t be using Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp anyway, considering both are owned by Meta and their privacy track record is shaky at best.

              Signal is a great choice, but we get back to the main point where not everyone is on Signal, and once you are on Signal you’re locked in to using Signal and must have their app to participate in the conversation.

              My point wasn’t that SMS is better, but it’s simpler and more widely available and doesn’t require a standalone application to use.

              Ideally we would use an open standard like the Matrix standard to communicate, that way you can download whatever application you want and have all the privacy you could ever desire, but not have to download some random messaging application just to catch up from Gary from primary school

    • WashedOver ( WashedOver@lemmy.ca ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’ve found the same thing with the IG and FB apps which is why I don’t use them. I stick to the mobile web versions but they have made it difficult to message from the android mobile web without extra steps like desktop mode. Even then there can be missing functionality.

      There was also an article earlier this year where they were purposely “testing” the apps that forcibly drained some user batteries quickly without a care for the actual users affected. Since I’m often using my phone for navigation in the woods I want as much battery life as possible please.

      Anyways if it wasn’t for older friends and family members I would no longer be using FB.

      • WashedOver ( WashedOver@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Certainly a argument can be made for this. For me it is the extended family and contacts from hobbies /sports. Without FB they would have completely faded out of my life. This low level method maintains a loose family connections once maintained by the senior family members that have long since passed. As for the others yes completely disappear from your life…

    • SokathHisEyesOpen ( Anticorp@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      Of course it did. They’re tracking everything you do, and everywhere you go, even when the app isn’t running. Don’t believe me? Install the Duck Duck Go browser and enable App Tracking Protection. You will be shocked by the amount of shit so many apps track in the background, but Facebook is one of the worst.

      • realharo ( realharo@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yes, people using it as the main messaging app is still preferable to the situation in the US where people on different mobile platforms can’t message each other without bullshit compatibility issues and bubble colors.

        At least here it doesn’t matter what platform you’re on - including desktops and the web - and as a result nobody cares.

        Of course, the same is true for almost every other messaging service too, and there are better ones out there.

      • Cethin ( Cethin@lemmy.zip ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 years ago

        Back when people used Facebook, it was a convenient way to connect people to chats quickly and easily. I don’t think that’s the case anymore though.

        • smileyhead ( smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de ) deleted by creator
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 years ago

          It isn’t. Adding someone is always digging through people with the same name and searching for “that one with glasses on profile picture”. There are some codes to scan, but they are Facebook’s custom format incompatible with QR code scanners and inconvinient to use.

      • Facebook Messenger is probably the closest thing to a modern Yellow Pages as we have. Not everybody is on there, but most people are - even if they haven’t checked their profile in years. With the fall of landlines, it can be the easiest (or only) way to find/contact someone - especially if you’re a GenX or early Millennial because we have all dropped out landlines, but we created most of our social connections before any other messaging service existed. Heck, almost none of the people I knew from college in the 90s even had an email address that they stuck with (assuming I actually had email logs going back thirty years). It’s nice that so many message services exist, but most have no way to “look someone up” the way it’s possible to do on something like messenger/fb. (admittedly - it’s both good and bad)

        I suppose there’s a chance that LinkedIn is the other major database of real names out there; I’ve never tried it for locating people.

  • I can’t uninstall the Facebook app from my phone (not unless I use ADB), so it’s disabled. I uninstalled Messenger. I pinned a post on my FB page that said if people needed to contact me they can email me or text me. I have posted about why folks should leave these platforms until I am blue in the face. If they want to make the switch, they will. If they want to reach out, they will.

    Eventually, I want to get an unlocked phone, load a custom ROM, and tell the big platforms to fuck off. I resent how difficult they have made that, and I resent how complacent we have become because of it.

  • MystikIncarnate ( MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 years ago

    Here’s an idea. Stop using FB.

    I get it, your boomer parents/grandparents don’t know how to use anything else… But you can show them. It’s very similar and doesn’t suck as much.

    I understand this move from FB too… Rather than maintain two apps, that both do the same thing, just maintain one. However, without the ability to turn off all the bloat and crap in the one app to make it very similar to the other, I don’t see that being viable for many, and I’m sure they don’t let you do that, so, ha ha, get fucked.

    Anyways, Facebook is a cancer.

      • MystikIncarnate ( MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        If I’m always going to where my friends are, and they never come to where I am, are they really my friends?

        These are the questions I constantly mull over to try to figure out. It’s extremely important to me that me and my friends are on equal footing, we’re both partners in the friendship, neither is following the other’s lead. I’ve lost many friends by simply not being the first person to send a message.

        To me, I’d rather have fewer friends who have me as an active part of their life, versus a lot of friends I’m constantly making concessions for that wouldn’t do the same for me.

        With all that said, I’m not you and I have no control over your choices. Do what you will.