Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...come up with a similar stupid name for them... Farcebook? Been guilty of that one for 8 years. Never had an account, so the label is all hearsay ... but what i kept hearing made me afraid to become a Farce of myself ... so i said to myself "stay away". Hard enough to be self-effacing. i do still hope we will find a way to communicate easily with relevant others without doing violence to our communication methods…
Facebork is the other one I've heard, and occasionally use. Problem is that neither really captures a sense of the rapacious amorality of which facebook is, I believe, being accused.
“Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”
101–105 of 105 posts
Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”
#102Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure thing, we've taken a stab at it.
It’s not an article. It’s a “roll up” of a thread by Sarah Jamie Lewis as you can see here https://twitter.com/sarahjamielewis/status/10889141928479170...
Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on the logic of why saving encrypted text to an image file is more user-friendly than saving it to a text file? Why would that make people more comfortable?
Because people are more comfortable dealing with image files than .enc files or whatever extension one might use. Plus you dont just have to encode text. You can encode any file type. Look, I don't know what this is to the various participants in this thread but to me it's been really sad. I feel like I'm arguing politics. I don't think I've said anything unduly disrespectful or even incorrect yet I've been arguing a…
Typically, files on a phone don’t have an extension that is presented to the user.
Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
For $1 I'd agree most of the user base would commit to paying it too.
I wonder how much that covers how much they spend on the infrastructure to run WhatsApps backend services. If its even profitable.