My issue is it claims to be end-to-end encrypted, which is really weird. Sure, TLS between you and your bank's server is end-to-end encrypted. But that puts your trust on the service provider.

Usually in a context where a cypherpunk deploys E2EE it means only the intended parties have access to plaintexts. And when it's you having chat with a server it's like cloud backups, the data must be encrypted by the time it leaves your device, and decrypted only once it has reached your device again. For remote computing, that would require LLM handles ciphertexts only, basically, fully homomorphic encryption (FHE). If it's that, then sure, shut up and take my money, but AFAIK the science of FHE isn't nearly there yet.

So the only alternative I can see here is SGX where client verifies what the server is doing with the data. That probably works against surveillance capitalism, hostile takeover etc., but it is also US NOBUS backdoor. Intel is a PRISM partner after all, and who knows if national security requests allow compelling SGX keys. USG did go after Lavabit RSA keys after all.

So I'd really want to see this either explained, or conveyed in the product's threat model documentation, and see that threat model offered on the front page of the project. Security is about knowing the limits of the privacy design so that the user can make an informed decision.

Looks like using Google for login. You can also "Continue with Email." Logging in with Google is pretty standard.

It is not privacy oriented if you are sharing login, profile information with Google and Confer.

It wouldn't be long until Google and Gemini can read this information and Google knows you are using Confer.

Wouldn't trust it regardless if Email is available.

The fact that confer allows Google login shows that Confer doesn't care about users privacy.

You don’t have to use Google login though? People building solutions like this that aim for broad adoption have to make certain compromises and this seems OK to me (just talking about offering a social login option, haven’t checked the whole project in detail)

Most people don't care about Google knowing whether they're using a particular app. If they do, they have the option not to use it. The main concern is that the chats themselves are E2E encrypted, which we have every reason to believe.

This is a perfect example of purism vs. pragmatism. Moxie is a pragmatist who builds things that the average person can actually use. If it means that millions of people who would otherwise have used ChatGPT will migrate because of the reduced friction and get better privacy as a result, that's a win even if at the margin they're still leaking one insignificant piece of metadata to Google.