Is WhatsApp really the best messaging option?

[JustWondering]

WhatsApp seems to be the preferred messaging platform among providers, and I don't quite understand why. It's a Meta product. When it comes to privacy, they don't have a great track record. I've looked into it and my impression is that it's not really possible to use it anonymously. Maybe there are ways to protect your identity from the people you chat with, but the account itself is still traceable to your identity. I have a personal aversion to anything related to Meta, but it seems my concerns and my preference for chatting on RM is to my detriment, as it cuts out a number of people who only want to be contacted on WhatsApp. Is my worry unfounded? Why isn't Signal or Telegram more common?

[Heart It Deep]

WhatsApp chats are still encrypted, and disappearing messages are useful.  Some providers use that feature.  

I'm also surprised that Telegram or Signal isn't more commonly used.... maybe it's just a popularity thing? 

 

 

[ACluelessGent]

There is no privacy. Anywhere. Accept it. It's 2026. Who needs privacy? Whatsapp is great. I use it mainly among friends. For escorts and various paid encounters I use insta.

[Roger Smith]

WhatsApp offers some encryption and some protection, like the others. 

But it also usually ensures that the provider has your number so they can look you up on Mr Number.  

[JustWondering]

55 minutes ago, Roger Smith said:

But it also usually ensures that the provider has your number so they can look you up on Mr Number.  

It appears this is changing soon. WhatsApp is introducing usernames, and will provide the option of keeping phone numbers private.

Edited yesterday at 06:15 PM by JustWondering

[nomad]

WA is by far the most convenient for anyone traveling since it allows free messaging and calling almost anywhere you can get Wifi.  Telegram is okay, but the amount of spam can be overwhelming.  Signal is almost overwhelming US and German users.  Given this, WA is just easier and more widely accessible.  

Edited yesterday at 06:55 PM by nomad

[DMonDude]

4 hours ago, JustWondering said:

WhatsApp seems to be the preferred messaging platform among providers, and I don't quite understand why. It's a Meta product. When it comes to privacy, they don't have a great track record. I've looked into it and my impression is that it's not really possible to use it anonymously. Maybe there are ways to protect your identity from the people you chat with, but the account itself is still traceable to your identity. I have a personal aversion to anything related to Meta, but it seems my concerns and my preference for chatting on RM is to my detriment, as it cuts out a number of people who only want to be contacted on WhatsApp. Is my worry unfounded? Why isn't Signal or Telegram more common?

Completely agree and i think about "why aren't providers/clients all on Signal or Threema?" a lot too. I have the same critiques of WhatsApp and all Meta/Facebook companies in general. I greatly dislike using their products/services and options like Signal or Threema are better in terms of privacy/anonymity.

WhatsApp is widely popular mainly just because it'd already been the most widely used messaging app globally for a long time. It was one of the first messaging apps that really took off in widespread use during the times when regular SMS/MMS texting used to cost money, especially for international messaging. It's never lost that first mover/most popular app advantage.

You may be aware of a lot of this, but under the hood, WhatsApp actually uses the same open source encryption protocol that Signal created and uses. The WhatsApp messages contents are truly encrypted, by default, in transit from device A to device B to the same level as they are on Signal and Meta can't read the messages. Which is actually a notable advantage over Telegram which does not encrypt messages unless you activate "Secret Chats". Which you have to do separately with each individual person you're messaging. Telegram's encryption for Secret Chat's uses MT Proto 2.0 protocol which is Telegram's custom, but mostly open source, encryption protocol and to my knowledge it works similarly but it's not the Signal protocol like Signal and WhatsApp use. Check this out for a deeper dive on WhatsApp encryption/data handling: https://www.securityhero.io/is-whatsapp-safe/

The same is true for Google RCS texting. RCS is the replacement to SMS/MMS that Google uses a closed version of (there's an open standard version but Google and phone carriers made it so that version doesn't get updates to make it usable for third party texting apps like Textra or other texting apps) and is the default messaging app on nearly all Android phones. It also has cross compatibility including encryption with Apple iMessage as of fairly recently, so iMessage texts with an Android user no longer fall back to SMS/MMS but to RCS on supported iOS and Android versions. This is also another main way sex workers/clients communicate. It also is encrypted, but Google and the phone carriers have the other identifying metadata just like WhatsApp and Telegram do.

These big companies largely don't want or need the actual content of our messages anymore, but they do keep the metadata logs of who we message, when, where you are, device IP addresses, how much/long you use the app for, and other metadata (for years) and this is largely the info they are using to still build advertising profiles on us and to turn over to law enforcement when compelled to do so. That can then be what's used to get a warrant for a device search and they get message content from the actual devices of the users if it is still on the device.

The advantage Signal has is that the messages/underlying protocol are fully encrypted and open source, the user facing app and server code itself is also open source meaning you or a trusted auditor can actually check that the app functions the way the developers say it does (not the case with Telegram and Whatsapp), and 3rd party code audits repeatedly show that basically the only data they ever have is when you made your account and the most recent time you last used the app/pinged a server. They don't even have the metadata for who is messaging who and when, let alone message content. It's all encrypted along with the message content.

I feel like Signal isn't well advertised outside of tech minded/privacy minded people and spaces. It's most popular with politicians/government workers, reporters, political activists, and privacy seeking regular users. So i don't think many in the sex work space even know it's an option or they don't fully see the upside when WhatsApp/Telegram have the option to encrypt message content too (which of course is not the only aspect of messaging privacy that matters).

Signal also has the problem any app competing with an entrenched dominating competitor in it's field has. Getting large swathes of people, even those just among a niche group, to switch apps/services is always a near impossible task unless something monumental happens that causes a mass user exodus from the popular app to an agreed upon alternative.

 

4 hours ago, ACluelessGent said:

There is no privacy. Anywhere. Accept it. It's 2026. Who needs privacy?

This is objectively not true. Privacy is still a thing, and it's why the powers that be are still trying to increase their encroachment on it. Many countries/governments are still actively trying (and have not yet succeeded) to ban or gain backdoor access to things like encrypted apps or VPNs specifically because they do provide privacy.

Privacy is important, is still attainable to varying degrees if you're willing to become technologically savvy and give up/find alternatives to certain conveniences we're all used to in the digital age. Many just simply aren't willing to put in that effort/give up those conveniences or don't know how or don't care how to figure it out. Which is why those that feel the way you do default to that position. It's not that we can't, it's that you don't want/care to because the conveniences you get in exchange for your privacy are worth it to you. You don't understand or just aren't usually the one directly affected by the instances when that trade off is abused. 

And that's truly totally fine, but just be aware and honest about it at least. Lack of privacy is not at all something you have to just accept, and some semblance of privacy is something everyone needs to varying degrees. Whether you think you have something to hide or not (and whether you do or not is subjective and sometimes isn't always up to you).

Edited 23 hours ago by DMonDude
typos

[ArmyHands]

Soo many of my STRAIGHT CLIENTS...

are using it...  mainly hiding it from there wives.... 

plus they are also using the disappearing texts...

 

[Rayphactor]

3 minutes ago, DMonDude said:

The advantage Signal has is that the messages/underlying protocol are fully encrypted and open source, the user facing app and server code itself is also open source meaning you or a trusted auditor can actually check that the app functions the way the developers say it does (not the case with Telegram and Whatsapp), and 3rd party code audits repeatedly show that basically the only data they ever have is when you made your account and the most recent time you last used the app/pinged a server. They don't even have the metadata for who is messaging who and when, let alone message content. It's all encrypted along with the message content.

Well said, @DMonDude.

I, too, wish more US domestic providers used Signal.

[+ SirBillybob]

RM profiles come and go. That person can maintain contacts and preserve chats with continuity on WhatsApp. Moreover, the desire or need to change a cellular number can be accommodated while still preserving the contacts and content that one wishes to maintain, such as a roster of valued clients. 

You can also pin your current (at point of send), or live stationary or mobile location, to a contact that may be en route to meeting you. They can in turn patch that through to their navigation, or map theirs to you if delayed, lost, etc. They can send a voice message or ring you to speak briefly without logging in to RM and inviting a fender bender. 

Besides, surely two people mutually oriented to discretion should be able to arrange, via written format, a hook-up without it coming across to a third party observer as prostitutional trafficking. 

Edited 21 hours ago by SirBillybob

[mike carey]

Like most questions about 'What is the best ...' the best answer is 'It depends'. (I recognise that I just contradicted myself, I said that you can't describe something as 'best' then asserted I was offering the 'best' answer.)

I'm perfectly happy using WhatsApp. It avoids communications channels tied to the platform of the service you want to use (like RM). It avoids the specific constraints (price, access restrictions etc) of PSTN and proprietary burner phone apps. But it's limited to places where you have internet rather than telephone access. My phone service doesn't differentiate between domestic and international phone services, but that seems to be rather common in the US.

The thing to remember about WhatsApp, that at times seems to be overlooked, is that the security it offers is point to point encryption. It DOES NOT offer encryption in either the transmitting or receiving device. That still depends on your own device security. It also doesn't protect you from the content of a message sent via WhatsApp. If someone wants to send you a virus or malware, they still can, but it will be encrypted on its way to you. That is not particularly reassuring.

[CuriousByNature]

Maybe it's time to go back to earlier technologies...

[mike carey]

Carrier pigeons.

[ACluelessGent]

8 hours ago, DMonDude said:

Completely agree and i think about "why aren't providers/clients all on Signal or Threema?" a lot too. I have the same critiques of WhatsApp and all Meta/Facebook companies in general. I greatly dislike using their products/services and options like Signal or Threema are better in terms of privacy/anonymity.

WhatsApp is widely popular mainly just because it'd already been the most widely used messaging app globally for a long time. It was one of the first messaging apps that really took off in widespread use during the times when regular SMS/MMS texting used to cost money, especially for international messaging. It's never lost that first mover/most popular app advantage.

You may be aware of a lot of this, but under the hood, WhatsApp actually uses the same open source encryption protocol that Signal created and uses. The WhatsApp messages contents are truly encrypted, by default, in transit from device A to device B to the same level as they are on Signal and Meta can't read the messages. Which is actually a notable advantage over Telegram which does not encrypt messages unless you activate "Secret Chats". Which you have to do separately with each individual person you're messaging. Telegram's encryption for Secret Chat's uses MT Proto 2.0 protocol which is Telegram's custom, but mostly open source, encryption protocol and to my knowledge it works similarly but it's not the Signal protocol like Signal and WhatsApp use. Check this out for a deeper dive on WhatsApp encryption/data handling: https://www.securityhero.io/is-whatsapp-safe/

The same is true for Google RCS texting. RCS is the replacement to SMS/MMS that Google uses a closed version of (there's an open standard version but Google and phone carriers made it so that version doesn't get updates to make it usable for third party texting apps like Textra or other texting apps) and is the default messaging app on nearly all Android phones. It also has cross compatibility including encryption with Apple iMessage as of fairly recently, so iMessage texts with an Android user no longer fall back to SMS/MMS but to RCS on supported iOS and Android versions. This is also another main way sex workers/clients communicate. It also is encrypted, but Google and the phone carriers have the other identifying metadata just like WhatsApp and Telegram do.

These big companies largely don't want or need the actual content of our messages anymore, but they do keep the metadata logs of who we message, when, where you are, device IP addresses, how much/long you use the app for, and other metadata (for years) and this is largely the info they are using to still build advertising profiles on us and to turn over to law enforcement when compelled to do so. That can then be what's used to get a warrant for a device search and they get message content from the actual devices of the users if it is still on the device.

The advantage Signal has is that the messages/underlying protocol are fully encrypted and open source, the user facing app and server code itself is also open source meaning you or a trusted auditor can actually check that the app functions the way the developers say it does (not the case with Telegram and Whatsapp), and 3rd party code audits repeatedly show that basically the only data they ever have is when you made your account and the most recent time you last used the app/pinged a server. They don't even have the metadata for who is messaging who and when, let alone message content. It's all encrypted along with the message content.

I feel like Signal isn't well advertised outside of tech minded/privacy minded people and spaces. It's most popular with politicians/government workers, reporters, political activists, and privacy seeking regular users. So i don't think many in the sex work space even know it's an option or they don't fully see the upside when WhatsApp/Telegram have the option to encrypt message content too (which of course is not the only aspect of messaging privacy that matters).

Signal also has the problem any app competing with an entrenched dominating competitor in it's field has. Getting large swathes of people, even those just among a niche group, to switch apps/services is always a near impossible task unless something monumental happens that causes a mass user exodus from the popular app to an agreed upon alternative.

 

This is objectively not true. Privacy is still a thing, and it's why the powers that be are still trying to increase their encroachment on it. Many countries/governments are still actively trying (and have not yet succeeded) to ban or gain backdoor access to things like encrypted apps or VPNs specifically because they do provide privacy.

Privacy is important, is still attainable to varying degrees if you're willing to become technologically savvy and give up/find alternatives to certain conveniences we're all used to in the digital age. Many just simply aren't willing to put in that effort/give up those conveniences or don't know how or don't care how to figure it out. Which is why those that feel the way you do default to that position. It's not that we can't, it's that you don't want/care to because the conveniences you get in exchange for your privacy are worth it to you. You don't understand or just aren't usually the one directly affected by the instances when that trade off is abused. 

And that's truly totally fine, but just be aware and honest about it at least. Lack of privacy is not at all something you have to just accept, and some semblance of privacy is something everyone needs to varying degrees. Whether you think you have something to hide or not (and whether you do or not is subjective and sometimes isn't always up to you).

 I exaggerated to make my point. You are right. Privacy comes at a cost in convenience. For me it is not worth it.

[+ SirBillybob]

15 hours ago, mike carey said:

Carrier pigeons.

But for a batch of prospective tricks one needs to organize marine-grade group boot camp training.

Edited 2 hours ago by SirBillybob