Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#81

Post by fwn »

oarsinsync wrote: post #68
dx034 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only using whatsapp without other facebook accounts should still be fine. Whatsapp has end2end encryption (unlike FB messenger) and if you don't use other FB products they can't use your data for ads. Obviously not as good as an independent messenger but will cause the same revenue loss for FB.

I believe that’s only text. Try sending someone a video. Takes a while. Try forwarding that video to someone else moments later. Happens pretty quickly. Same applies with photos in my experience. I’d assume voice notes,location pins, etc are also subject to this as well.

WhatsApp reduces the quality of your media and saves it in a second folder of your gallery.

If you forward already converted media it will be taken from the gallery in it's compressed, substantially smaller version.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#82

Post by ryanlol »

exodust wrote: post #71
ryanlol wrote: post #25

I recently saw the name @Mat available on instagram, I registered it. Twice. Both times the name was taken from me by a Facebook employee and eventually given to this Mat Henley guy from Uber. Screenshots of Facebook staff forcefully resetting the account names: https://i.succ.in/WuwuV1IH.png https://i.succ.in/WuMMtKTr.png (The revert button does nothing, just offers to change your password) It seems like FB employee…

Your screenshots show no evidence of "facebook staff" doing anything. Looks to me like an automated notification triggered by a username change on your account. I don't use Instagram so maybe I'm missing something, but you should have done as it said and changed your password after clicking "revert this change".

>Your screenshots show no evidence of "facebook staff" doing anything.

Are you suggesting that Mat Henley from Uber hacked me (or hired someone to hack me?), or that I myself gave up the name and am telling lies now? I think both of those sound tremendously unlikely.

I am 100% sure that neither of these accounts were compromised.

>but you should have done as it said and changed your password after clicking "revert this change".

I did, that's how I found out that the button does not actually revert the change, it just takes you to a prompt which makes you reset your password.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#83

Post by drcongo »

ryanlol wrote: post #25

I recently saw the name @Mat available on instagram, I registered it. Twice. Both times the name was taken from me by a Facebook employee and eventually given to this Mat Henley guy from Uber. Screenshots of Facebook staff forcefully resetting the account names: https://i.succ.in/WuwuV1IH.png https://i.succ.in/WuMMtKTr.png (The revert button does nothing, just offers to change your password) It seems like FB employee…

But _________mat____ is so much catchier.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#84

Post by aerique »

simias wrote: post #69
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that Facebook won't buy Facebook will buy because it’s profitable to buy. Monopoly power is a known mode of market failure. (Note: you don’t need 100% of a market for the deleterious effects of monopoly power to manifest.) The only solution is blocking future acquisitions and breaking up Facebook.

Facebook won't buy IRC or any distributed open source decentralized protocol. Chats, newsgroups, email... The net used to be a lot more open and decentralized that it is now, maybe it's time to go back a couple of decades?

Won't they do with decentralized chat what they did with XMPP?: integrate support for a while to keep users from getting away and then drop that support again when the time is right?

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#85

Post by ryanlol »

exolymph wrote: post #77
ryanlol wrote: post #25

I recently saw the name @Mat available on instagram, I registered it. Twice. Both times the name was taken from me by a Facebook employee and eventually given to this Mat Henley guy from Uber. Screenshots of Facebook staff forcefully resetting the account names: https://i.succ.in/WuwuV1IH.png https://i.succ.in/WuMMtKTr.png (The revert button does nothing, just offers to change your password) It seems like FB employee…

Hey, I'm a tech reporter and I'm interested in looking into this further. Can you email me, or perhaps provide contact info? My email is smann@inc.com

I've sent you an email, could go to spam, not sure.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#86

Post by mcny »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #45
supertrope wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that FB has shown time and time again that they consider user privacy a mere road bump. Pervasive dark patterns. I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. Advertising supported websites will always remain loyal to their customers: advertisers. Users are not willing to pay money and requiring a cover charge hurts adoption. What used to be called spyware is now "analytics." People proudly proclai…

> I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. - and - > If we want privacy to be respected we need a right to privacy law. You're almost disagreeing with yourself unless you see a significant difference between regulatory oversight and privacy laws. Both reflect government authority over Facebook (etc.) to protect its citizens. Myself, I would be happy with either option. We have neither now.

I don't always want privacy though. Is privacy at odds with accountability?

We were talking about how disclosing salary and compensation information for everyone would help everyone in the long run and some people objected saying they want privacy.

We have a lot of information that some people know but most do not. We have to think carefully what is private and what isn't. For example, your employer knows how much they pay you. I say it isn't private.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#87

Post by saalweachter »

colordrops wrote: post #60
alphakappa wrote: post #8

I think it's clear from nearly a decade's worth of Facebook's trysts with privacy issues that it is a company that doesn't have a fundamental stance that's in favor of user privacy. Over and over again it has either intentionally built features that disregard privacy, or put in wrong defaults, or simply brushed off criticisms when others have misused Facebook. At this point we should be asking ourselves why we expect…

> We should also be asking ourselves whether an organization that has the power to be so influential in the destinies of nations should be run by executives who see every issue as a PR issue to be dealt with, rather than ones that should teach them fundamental lessons. That's an extremely insightful statement but unfortunately also describes the DNC and RNC, which are already in control of the US.

The DNC/RNC really only matter for Presidential politics. The State and county committees are what matter for lower elections, including House and Senate elections.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#88

Post by 7Z7 »

ryanlol wrote: post #25

I recently saw the name @Mat available on instagram, I registered it. Twice. Both times the name was taken from me by a Facebook employee and eventually given to this Mat Henley guy from Uber. Screenshots of Facebook staff forcefully resetting the account names: https://i.succ.in/WuwuV1IH.png https://i.succ.in/WuMMtKTr.png (The revert button does nothing, just offers to change your password) It seems like FB employee…

How recently?

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#89

Post by dx034 »

oarsinsync wrote: post #68
dx034 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only using whatsapp without other facebook accounts should still be fine. Whatsapp has end2end encryption (unlike FB messenger) and if you don't use other FB products they can't use your data for ads. Obviously not as good as an independent messenger but will cause the same revenue loss for FB.

I believe that’s only text. Try sending someone a video. Takes a while. Try forwarding that video to someone else moments later. Happens pretty quickly. Same applies with photos in my experience. I’d assume voice notes,location pins, etc are also subject to this as well.

It's all encrypted. Encryption in group chats is a bit weaker to provide better usability (there was an article recently I believe) but messages itself are encrypted. And since we're talking here about usage of data for ad tracking, any encryption is likely good enough.

They can of course still track meta data, e.g. tailor your ads based on interest of contacts. But if you only use whatsapp (ad free), they own't make any money with it.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#90

Post by jasonvorhe »

luckydata wrote: post #44

Facebook exists for one reason only, Mark's desire to be rich. Everything else is completely opportunistic. If you see it through that lens, everything they've ever done makes complete sense.

If that was the case, he'd find a replacement CEO, sell his shares and be done with it. He's already rich enough to be have to lift another finger in the next 10 lifetimes.
Post reply on HN