this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
17 points (100.0% liked)

DeGoogle Yourself

17311 readers
147 users here now

A community for those that would like to get away from Google.

Here you may post anything related to DeGoogling, why we should do it or good software alternatives!

Rules

  1. Be respectful even in disagreement

  2. No advertising unless it is very relevent and justified. Do not do this excessively.

  3. No low value posts / memes. We or you need to learn, or discuss something.

Related communities

!privacyguides@lemmy.one !privacy@lemmy.ml !privatelife@lemmy.ml !linuxphones@lemmy.ml !fossdroid@social.fossware.space !fdroid@lemmy.ml

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
Byereddithellolemmy@lemmy.world
chevy9294@monero.town
17
How do you guys keep Signal up to date? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by _Nemo_@lemmy.ml to c/degoogle@lemmy.ml
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'll cut straight to the chase: updating the Signal app annoys me and I'd like to know your best practices.

As far as I know, there are three ways of updating Signal:

  1. From the Play Store. This works quite reliably, yet comes at the cost of trusting and connecting to Google's servers.
  2. Via the app's built-in auto-updater that will, after a while, suggest an update through a notification. However, the frequency of these updates is really lackluster and thus unreliable, and there's no way to trigger an update check manually.
  3. Via the APK on Signal's website. In order for this to work, you need to have done the initial installation of the app from an APK already. Also, as far as I know, this version will not use GCM / Push notifications, but rather deliver notifications through a web socket, which is a huge drain on battery. Also, you'll have to constantly check for updates yourself or rely on the (unreliable) self-updating mechanism (see 2).
  4. //Edit a fourth way might be to just update via Obtainium and pulling APKs off their Github. I'm not sure what that does to GCM/Websocket usage, see 3.

Let me know how you do it, and if there's something I've overlooked.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] _Nemo_@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)
  1. Blurt out an opinion without the slightest effort to support it with evidence.
  2. Whine you're getting downvotes for ir.
  3. Claim your baseless opinion is "just stating the facts". Again, refuse even the tiniest amount of reasoning.
  4. Profit?
[–] Hund@feddit.nu 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You're forced to use a phone number and a phone from Google or Apple. Do I have to say more? This is not a claim. It's a fact. Well. Unless something has changed?

I have never whined, but I can see how you wish that would be true. ;)

And, my apologies, if I have somehow hurt your feelings. It was never my intention to do so.

[–] _Nemo_@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Thanks for providing some evidence. You're not wrong on many of those points, but not entirely right either.

Phone numbers are an issue, true, though you can get around that using a burner SIM or even a virtual phone number. Also, contact discovery has been working without exposing your phone number for over a year now.

a phone from Google or Apple

The phone can be made by anyone. The OS needs to be Android or iOS at some point, which is unfortunate; pure (desktop) Linux usage isn't possible. That said, deGoogled Android has been around for more than a decade, allowing you to use Android in a privacy-friendly way. So if you want, you absolutely can avoid being tied to Google and use Signal.

As you can see, there's a lot more nuance here than "Signal isn't private"; privacy, after all, isn't binary, but rather a gradient. For what it's worth, Signal is more private than many messengers out there by a long shot, and it allows you to use it in more privacy-friendly ways if you so desire. While there are messengers out there that go even further in terms of security, privacy and decentralisation, a lot of them come with usability and convenience drawbacks. The way I see it, Signal sits in a Goldilocks Zone of "private enough" (for most threat models) and "convenient enough" for mainstream adoption. You can have the most secure and air-tight messenger; if there's nobody there to talk to, it's no more than a technically sophisticated brick. For now, Signal may be our best shot for mainstream adoption of reasonably private and secure messaging. If your threat model is higher than that of average Joe, by all means, go for Briar, SimpleX chat or any of the more hardcore options.

[–] Hund@feddit.nu 1 points 3 days ago

Phone numbers are an issue, true, though you can get around that using a burner SIM or even a virtual phone number.

You can't buy any SIM here without providing ID. I believe that's more of a rule than an exception these days, but I don't have any actual numbers to back up my claim.

However. I don't think that anyone requiring extreme privacy would use any phone whatsoever.

Also, contact discovery has been working without exposing your phone number for over a year now.

I trust Signal when it comes to security and privacy.

The phone can be made by anyone. The OS needs to be Android or iOS at some point, which is unfortunate

With the Google Play Services or whatever it's called, which is required for notifications to work.

Remember that they have killed people based on metadata alone.

That said, deGoogled Android has been around for more than a decade, allowing you to use Android in a privacy-friendly way.

It's what I've been using for years. :) GApps has always been optional. Back in the days vanilla Android was even perfectly useable without GApps! It feels like AOSP is basically only a kernel these days.

So if you want, you absolutely can avoid being tied to Google and use Signal.

Yes, but you will have to rely on third party clients, which Signal don't like. That's not a great experience. :/

As you can see, there's a lot more nuance here than "Signal isn't private"; privacy, after all, isn't binary, but rather a gradient.

I guess so. I'm not much of a person of nuances though. I like living in a binary world. :D

The way I see it, Signal sits in a Goldilocks Zone of "private enough" (for most threat models) and "convenient enough" for mainstream adoption.

That is true. Perhaps I'm a bit hard at them, but then again, I'm a binary person. ;)