Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders • Hacker News Board

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#171

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #156

mycorrhizal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just not creative enough, but what is a better alternative? Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information. Or you have a hybrid ad model with the ability to opt out by paying some fee. Than what kind of world will that be when privacy is a luxury item limited to how much yo…

Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information. This is a strawman. I give you Usenet and IRC as counter examples.

[deleted]

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#172

Post by doctorsher » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

lyzan wrote: post #118

doctorsher wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With regards to your edit, yes, you are wrong. And I don't mean that in a harsh way, just answering your question. From WhatsApp themselves [0]: "WhatsApp end-to-end encryption ensures only you and the person you're communicating with can read what's sent, and nobody in between, not even WhatsApp. Your messages are secured with locks, and only the recipient and you have the special keys needed to unlock and read your…

That is end to end from your phone to their phone, and they are talking about 3rd parties outside the app. As your physically typing the the information into the chat message box, and before you send it, the app itself should have access to the plain text coming from the keyboard, which it then encrypts before it leaves your phone. Similarly it needs decrypted on the other side and displayed to the other user, at whi…

Of course, there must be plaintext at some point... I don't understand this line of reasoning.

WhatsApp tells their users and more importantly the US Gov they do not have any access to the message content itself. For this attack surface to be an issue, that would mean WhatsApp is telling a bold faced lie, secretly exfiltrating the plaintext to a 3rd party, and doing so without getting caught by any black-box auditing.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#173

Post by pvg » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:44 PM UTC

pitt1980 wrote: post #163

pvg wrote: post #113

This is one of the weirdly recurring founder stories of 'after you sold something for good money, you don't get to tell the buyer what to do with it'.

Depends on the terms of the sale, maybe 'if you want to tell the buyer what to do with it, get that in writing, and expect the sale price to reflect term you've added, and to maybe kill the deal altogether'

There is no serious acquisition that involves you telling the buyer what to do, outside of very rare occurrences and even then under very narrow parameters.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#174

Post by Kalium » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

bawana wrote: post #132

mycorrhizal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just not creative enough, but what is a better alternative? Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information. Or you have a hybrid ad model with the ability to opt out by paying some fee. Than what kind of world will that be when privacy is a luxury item limited to how much yo…

How about crowdsourcing a social network? Look at synology NAS boxes-they have a ton of apps. They have even developed a stupid-proof way of connecting NAS boxes securely over the net without opening router ports. If i choose to install the synology 'chat' app, i could designate a fraction of the NAS space as a se[arate volume to be used soley by the app and sandboxed from my LAN. And just as synology boxen can sync…

A decentralized social network, built on peer-to-peer connections, allowing people to connect with one another without being intermediated and monetized by some central party? Sounds idyllic!

Is it possible that perhaps this has been considered before, and perhaps even implemented?

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#175

Post by jimmies » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

>Mr. Koum, a San Jose State University dropout, grew up in Soviet-era Ukraine, where the government could track communication, and talked frequently about his commitment to privacy.

Someone said that the people who love America the most are the immigrants who has to endure the crap back in their home country. I can totally relate to this. I have lived in a country where my privacy and personal judgment didn't mean anything. The government could do whatever with your life, and people can ruin your life and kill your whole family by accusing you of a story they hear from the vines [1, 2]. Maybe [3] - not from the same country, but it is the same story.

I make a point to not have Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp (now) - basically anything that Zuckerberg and co. laid their hands on. I fucking hate the whole idea of any entity blatantly time and again disrespecting my privacy and judgments to advance their agenda and make money. The truth is I really have no control over what it collects from me, what it shows me, what it tells me, what it advertises to me, what it hides from me. I know if I go with it, the decision of foregoing my privacy will go back and bite me when I need it the most. It doesn't matter what they say they stand for; it doesn't matter how many of my peers are using; it doesn't matter what I miss out; it doesn't matter how weird people think I am; it doesn't matter what opportunities I will lose. I have made a decision two years ago to never consider using Facebook, and I will do my damnest to stay away from Facebook and their products and I will try my damnest to convince people to do the same.

That's how much distaste I have for Facebook and their platform as a person who had a taste of injustice. Zuck might be on top of the laws and the world and has a lot of allies, but it's not like I have not seen that and I have to fear that. And that's probably the most beautiful thing about America.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh%C3%A2n_V%C4%83n%E2%80%93Gia...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_North_Vietnam

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#176

Post by seandhi » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

newscracker wrote: post #125

I have a question that the article doesn’t answer. If the original founders left because of disagreements on advertising as the monetization model for WhatsApp, are they still holding on to Facebook stock for their $3 billion and $9 billion net worth (respectively)? Or have they sold those since those shares are valued because of the advertising that Facebook pushes? The answer to this would say a lot about their cla…

> When Mr. Acton departed Facebook, he forfeited about $900 million in potential stock awards, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Koum is expected to officially depart in mid-August, in which case he would leave behind more than two million unvested shares worth about $400 million at Facebook’s current stock price. Both men would have received all their remaining shares had they stayed until this November, when their contracts end.

4 billion dollars of the 22 billion was cash. The remaining 18 billion was in Facebook stock[1]. Most likely, they still have stock in Facebook.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#177

Post by pvg » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #148

pvg wrote: post #113

This is one of the weirdly recurring founder stories of 'after you sold something for good money, you don't get to tell the buyer what to do with it'.

Likewise, this is why acquisitions come with golden handcuffs and lockups. I think everyone handled it well. They fought for what they believed in, they lost, and they chose to give up money instead of sticking around and being a pain in the ass. Facebook rightly said "we bought this and control it and here's what we want to do."

I don't think the sources for coverage like this come from Facebook.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#178

Post by thelock85 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

jshen wrote: post #127

ChuckMcM wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past the function of the "phone company" was a paid for service which provided for your communication needs. You didn't have to listen to ads before you could talk to your friends but you did occasionally get unwanted calls. This medium reached people rich and poor, all around the world. The challenge here is greed. One of the interesting topics in economics is the ability to subvert the supply-demand curve by…

I don’t know how old you are, but phone calls were really expensive in the decades before 2000. It’s not something low income people could afford to do very often.

If it was too expensive to dial out or accept collect, life went on for people rich and poor. I think we’ve entered a world where opting out of constant communication (like not answering your phone) is completely alien and in some cases unacceptable, which in turn makes the prospect of constant communication valuable. But I’m not sure how many use cases are out there for how constant digital connection improves outcomes for acute life events or quality of life in general, but the assumption is that it does (despite growing research to the contrary).

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#179

Post by pnutjam » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

ttul wrote: post #119

juhq wrote: post #97

"WhatsApp also negotiated for nicer bathrooms, with doors that reach the floor." This is not a norm in silicon valley/states?

I have never understood why North American bathroom stalls don’t just go to the floor. Jesus Christ how much would it really cost to enable some damn privacy.

Blame the people who spend all their time worrying about what your doing in private.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#180

Post by majidazimi » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

FigmentEngine wrote: post #160

nafey wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been hearing a lot of good things about signal... How are their servers paid for though if it's a free service?

"supported by grants and donations" according to their site.

Why is everyone doing business with a black and white strategy? On one extreme, everything is free and funded by selling user information and on the other extreme, everthing is free but funded by donation. What is wrong with 2$/year model? Everyone (I mean truly everyone) is willing to pay that.