Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

independent.co.uk

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#91

It's too late! Have you seen another search engine make a dent in Google's market share? How about another OS challenging Windows on a PC? Another social network? It is rather obvious that: if the main purpose of a business is to grow revenue/market share, if successful, it will eventually grow to close to 100% market share. This situation, commonly known as a monopoly, cannot be reversed by free market competition a…

> It is rather obvious that: if the main purpose of a business is to grow revenue/market share, if successful, it will eventually grow to close to 100% market share. The main purpose of a business is to generate profit, not just revenue. Apple is pretty clear evidence that you don't need a massive market share to be highly profitable. > be a hermit and stop using FB and WhatsApp Is that seriously how you see this? Ho…

C'mon don't be so literal. Hermit as in isolated from a social interactive context. For instance, take this personal example: I like trail running. Nowadays, the ONLY way to find out when a cool race is happening is through Facebook. See, companies don't mind losing a few of us hermits that decide to stay off social networks and so they devote a great deal of its resources to communicate (and build brand) on these walled gardens. Heck! I even know new companies that don't even bother making a website anymore, the FB page is enough. Whatsapp is even worse since in my country it has become the de facto means of digital communication. I have friends, family, work and shared interest groups. Trust me, from personal experience, where I live. if you do not have FB or Whatsapp, you are out of the social interaction, a sort of hermit.

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#92
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made the move from Telegram to WhatsApp specifically because WhatsApp made end-to-end encryption the default. With Telegram you have to specify a conversation to be encrypted, and there's also controversy over the closed nature of the encryption used. I guess I'll try Signal this time? Don't know anything about it.

Signal is solid, though a few privacy advocates criticize the dependence on Google Play Services on Android phones. I also get the impression that development has slowed, with the developers (Open Whisper Systems) focusing on implementing the Signal Protocol in other clients (but correct me if I'm wrong). There's also the newly open-sourced Wire - it has the same dependence on Google, but it supports video calling an…

Wire offers APK download from wire.com/download and working on making notifications work without Google too.

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#93
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made the move from Telegram to WhatsApp specifically because WhatsApp made end-to-end encryption the default. With Telegram you have to specify a conversation to be encrypted, and there's also controversy over the closed nature of the encryption used. I guess I'll try Signal this time? Don't know anything about it.

Signal is solid, though a few privacy advocates criticize the dependence on Google Play Services on Android phones. I also get the impression that development has slowed, with the developers (Open Whisper Systems) focusing on implementing the Signal Protocol in other clients (but correct me if I'm wrong). There's also the newly open-sourced Wire - it has the same dependence on Google, but it supports video calling an…

[deleted]

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodness gracious, I hadn't realised adverts had gotten that bad again. You'd think with the ever-increasing backlash against web site advertisement they'd balk at such behaviour on their web site.

In the past I was against ad-blockers, thinking that websites need a business model to survive and that subscriptions can't work for everyone. But this has turned into a serious assault on privacy. So nowadays I have uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, the "Tracking Protection" in Firefox enabled by default and I'm seriously considering NoScript, too bad it wasn't available for Firefox Android last time I checked.

You can replicate much of the behavior of noscript by using the advanced mode of uBlock Origin and setting third party scripts to default deny.

The UI is cumbersome for this on Firefox Mobile, but it does work.

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodness gracious, I hadn't realised adverts had gotten that bad again. You'd think with the ever-increasing backlash against web site advertisement they'd balk at such behaviour on their web site.

In the past I was against ad-blockers, thinking that websites need a business model to survive and that subscriptions can't work for everyone. But this has turned into a serious assault on privacy. So nowadays I have uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, the "Tracking Protection" in Firefox enabled by default and I'm seriously considering NoScript, too bad it wasn't available for Firefox Android last time I checked.

I started using NoScript because my poor i3-powered laptop simply can't browse a lot of sites and maintain acceptable performance otherwise. Installing NoScript made the computer feel 10x faster.

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#96

Sidetone, but I find it a bit rich that The Independent is going all high and mighty about privacy and sharing data, when they have the most atrocious ad and tracking experience I've seen on a media site in a long time. Ghostly found 40 trackers http://imgur.com/a/miilB , the ads are extremely obnoxious. There's literally ads on top of ads sliding down my screen, pushing the content around. https://gfycat.com/Insecur…

Ghostery will report what it knows, what is part of its database. If we measure using distinct 3rd-party servers, I counted 92 of them:

https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/585534/18037421/6...

All this for a 6-paragraph article.

Edit: I should mention that when blocking all 3rd-party scripts and frames for that page, the article could be read just fine, with only one connection to a 3rd-party server, standard.co.uk (probably related to independent.co.uk).

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#97

It's too late! Have you seen another search engine make a dent in Google's market share? How about another OS challenging Windows on a PC? Another social network? It is rather obvious that: if the main purpose of a business is to grow revenue/market share, if successful, it will eventually grow to close to 100% market share. This situation, commonly known as a monopoly, cannot be reversed by free market competition a…

> This situation, commonly known as a monopoly, cannot be reversed by free market Actually, it can. Android and iOS are killing Windows as mobile is taking over the world and is now the #1 computer people use. Chrome dominates IE and MacOS is devs preferred OS when it used to be Windows. I think the free market is doing its job here. As for Google, they are still doing an amazing job with Search, if they start slacki…

Parent said:

> This situation, commonly known as a monopoly, cannot be reversed by free market

You said:

>The only real monopolies are the one maintained by the use of force by governments where competition can not flourish simply because the government makes it illegal to do so

100% agree.

Ironic that the OP is saying that "this situation cannot be reversed by free market" when it seems that the most obvious business opportunity visible here is a privacy-conscious messaging service.

No one is making the parent use whatsapp/FB, and there are many competing services. Some free, some not. Sort of stunning lack of imagination.

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#98
post #48

I don't get why everybody is pissed off. Did anybody really believe FB bought that company as a sort of charity? Surely they are interested in the exploitation of users metadata. If you don't like it, use _anything_ else. You can even use damn SMS, I guess in 2016 they are unlimited everywhere in the world.

MMS aren't in the UK, big use case of what's app is sharing images/s short videos privately.

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#99

Sidetone, but I find it a bit rich that The Independent is going all high and mighty about privacy and sharing data, when they have the most atrocious ad and tracking experience I've seen on a media site in a long time. Ghostly found 40 trackers http://imgur.com/a/miilB , the ads are extremely obnoxious. There's literally ads on top of ads sliding down my screen, pushing the content around. https://gfycat.com/Insecur…

I don't know what you are talking about I don't see any ads... Oh wait adblock.

Turns off adblock and hits refresh

Jesus christ nope not again never again.

Turns adblock back on

Re: WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

#100
post #17
post #9

Why we don't sell ads (2012) https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads ?

What did we really expect? That they were going to support a 1 billion user app as a public good? The writing was on the wall when they dropped the 79 pence per year fee

The way you framed the question, it seems so obvious that they "had to find a way to monetize". But there were probably some inflection points. This is where the issue of the customer trusting the website/app comes in. Initially, WhatsApp was charging a very small fee ($1 a year?) and making it appear as if they were doing it to avoid selling customer data.

The following post has already been linked many times during the related comment threads, but I am posting it again because I bet most people never actually read the whole thing.

----------

Link: https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads

Text:

When we sat down to start our own thing together three years ago we wanted to make something that wasn't just another ad clearinghouse. We wanted to spend our time building a service people wanted to use because it worked and saved them money and made their lives better in a small way. We knew that we could charge people directly if we could do all those things. We knew we could do what most people aim to do every day: avoid ads.

No one wakes up excited to see more advertising, no one goes to sleep thinking about the ads they'll see tomorrow. We know people go to sleep excited about who they chatted with that day (and disappointed about who they didn't). We want WhatsApp to be the product that keeps you awake... and that you reach for in the morning. No one jumps up from a nap and runs to see an advertisement.

Advertising isn't just the disruption of aesthetics, the insults to your intelligence and the interruption of your train of thought. At every company that sells ads, a significant portion of their engineering team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data and making sure it's all being logged and collated and sliced and packaged and shipped out... And at the end of the day the result of it all is a slightly different advertising banner in your browser or on your mobile screen.

Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.

At WhatsApp, our engineers spend all their time fixing bugs, adding new features and ironing out all the little intricacies in our task of bringing rich, affordable, reliable messaging to every phone in the world. That's our product and that's our passion. Your data isn't even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it.

When people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say "Have you considered the alternative?"

-----------

Notice the last line. And ask yourself if you were one of those people who actually believed these words when the blog post was published.

This is why we really need to be outraged. It is surprisingly easy to say the kind of words that con people and then take advantage of them over the long run. And then we make it worse by acting like it is no big deal. Acting like it is no big deal actually emboldens such companies. Now clearly FB lacks this moral compass right at the top (and yes, all my comments make this pretty obvious), but I am starting to wonder if the companies are getting away because there are absolutely no negative sanctions. Soon, this will just become the norm and the accepted practice. If LittleStartupCo pulls a similar bait and switch tomorrow, they will say "Yeah, but WhatsApp did the same thing, and there was a small commotion and people just quickly moved on"

Don't move on. Actually create a ruckus and cause some backlash. If the only problem that the company faces is a few nerds making a small ruckus on a nerd forum, then they will keep doing these things.

Instead, next time you see your friend who works at Facebook/Google/Microsoft/... talk about ethics in any context, mock them for participating in the discussion when they clearly don't have the spine to display the same ethics in their professional work. Just automatically discount their views/doubt their motives in every context, and I bet you will see the message will slowly start moving up to the top of the org.

Even better, stop hiring alumni of these organizations unless they make an open statement that they were sorry for their involvement in organizations which had no regard for privacy. Does it sound drastic? Then how does it feel to have supported the rise of WhatsApp in their days when they badly needed the support, only to see the bait and switch and the oh so casual - "sorry, but we are not really sorry, just FO losers"?

Post reply on HN