More to the point, even with e2ee, there is still communication metadata that is leaving your network for a third-party service. In a defense context, you would almost certainly prefer that the data does not leave your network unnecessarily.
In terms of Matrix usability and performance, Matrix 2.0 (https://matrix.org/blog/2024/10/29/matrix-2.0-is-here/) represents a huge step forward and can be used today with compatible clients such as Element X (https://element.io/blog/deep-dive-into-element-x/)
One opaque MITM is worse than 1000 MITM whose inner workings are bound by a secure protocol.
That’s how the internet works. Your connection doesn’t always go directly to the server you want.
Either way, you can run your own network of matrix nodes which are isolated from the rest of the open matrix network.
The idea was to build a network that --unlike pre-existing networks-- did not need centralization. The goal was to make the network resilient to parts not working, with obvious military benefits.
The same can be said for messaging systems. Centralization makes it easy to take the whole service out.
> It might have been an easier case to make if Matrix wasn’t an uphill battle in terms of usability and performance.
I expect TCP/IP to have been an uphill battle as well. But now we take it for granted. This likely will also happen to Matrix if it is used everywhere.
Now I hope the DoD makes some massive donations to Matrix. Money makes uphill battles more likely to have a good ending.
Whatsapp controls nearly everything: servers, clients, protocol.
Matrix has open protocols, several implementation of the clients/servers, and people can start their own server node.
In the comparison to TCP/IP this is quite similar. You can add to the network without needing approval of a central institution.
This is nothing to do with resilience in the face of things being destroyed in a war. That's what I'm saying: it's not the same sort of centralisation.
> In the comparison to TCP/IP this is quite similar. You can add to the network without needing approval of a central institution.
I can join WhatsApp without approval as well. But also - how like that is TCP/IP? All IP addresses have to be agreed and assigned, do they not?
> I can join WhatsApp without approval as well
You absolutely need approval to join WhatsApp. Approval and a phone number.
> All IP addresses have to be agreed and assigned, do they not
You can assign your own IPs and have your own network if you want.
Obligatory reminder that the whole "Internet routes around censorship" like it routes around glassed data centres during nuclear war, etc. applies to layers 3-4 of ISO/OSI model. The problematic centralization of the Internet happens at layer 7.
Not really. There's a single entity that controls WhatsApp and so the entire service can be stopped by threatening/sabotaging that single entity.
Especially when security and cryptography enters into the picture.
It doesn't matter until one day, something happens that does make it matter.
Imagine if a centralised model was used and a foreign state managed to sever connections to the internet that was used by that country/central server. It's more resilient to be able to route messages even if the network is under attack. This kind of thinking is behind the original design of the internet although we now seem to have centralised large portions of functionality.