zlacker

>>sschue+(OP)
> At present the project is focused on mobile platforms, specifically Android and iOS, as they cover the vast majority of users and real-world use cases. (..) Desktop support is not currently within the project's scope.

This is the equivalent of a "Do you guys not have phones??"[1] but on a way larger scale.

At least where i live i am able to use the bare minimum of phones, even working with tech. The friction is increasing though, which worries me a lot, and day after day there is a new attempt to shove it down your throat if you want to be considered a member of society. Seeing that a lot of countries (including mine) are pushing for age verification, and the whole thing about Android blocking 'sideload', by the end of 2026 you won't be considered a human being without a government certified smartphone.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly10r6m_-n8

>>harris+1U
This is good I think because lack of verifications anywhere is good. So at least desktops will be free of it.

>>krzyk+Z11
Worse: You just won't be able to use websites on desktop unless you pull out your phone and verify.

>>simjnd+S21
But this will at least create a healthy pressure for competing options for users on desktops, likely based on novel secure protocols.

>>mindsl+9h1
Most of the times the user prioritizes more convenient options over privacy. "Pressure for competing options" will mean that options compete for the most convenient way, not most secure or most private.