Talk:Threema

PSW Group and Connect
The reception section mentions both these sources, but I am not sure whether they meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability/reliability. Connect seems to be fairly relevant as a magazine (Connect (Zeitschrift)), but I am not sure about the other one. Connect only lists Threema as the jury's choice. I am inclined to remove both as they do not add much substance to the section.–Totie (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * PSW has been mentioned in Stiftung Warentest and has now been established for a few years, so I think it can stay. The other source did seem to be more of a random blog and has now been removed. NeorxenoSwang (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian Register of organizers of information dissemination
I wonder if this is even relevant, since Threema is not based in Russia. Once the law becomes effective in 2018 they might be blocked, but until then the registry entry has no effect. 46.127.132.187 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

EFF's evaluation on Threema
In the article under reception the Electronic Frontier Foundation's scoreboard from 2015 is cited. Nowadays this scoreboard is labelled as outdated. Recently the EFF even called it "dangerously oversimplified" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/secure-messaging-more-secure-mess and even the URL in the references for this scoreboard now redirects to this article where the EFF dissociated themselves from the scoreboard. Because of this I think the paragraph on the EFF scoreboard should be removed or at least it should be made clear this is not the opinion of the EFF anymore. 134.100.17.46 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone had already made reference to the EFF scorecard being removed; I have emphasised it is archival and have amended the reception to past tense. NeorxenoSwang (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Free?
https://threema.ch/en says "Pay once, chat forever." - Slsh (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fixed as of a few days ago NeorxenoSwang (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Not libre/open-source because no server code available
hi, it seem the server side is proprietary. Has anyone found the confirmation? It would be worth mentioning.

--Tuxayo (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Parts of this article (including the infobox) seem to be focused on the client software. The article overall seems to be about the entire service or company, though. We don't have sources to claim the overall service is FLOSS, so we should make sure the article doesn't seem to claim so. Nemo 20:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)