Google Duo also just announced that they will now support up to 32-person group chats that is rolling out slowly to all platforms. But more importantly, they will be e2ee: https://twitter.com/Emad_Omara/status/1272919561789005826
Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
441–450 of 557 posts
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#442So, they're announcing a feature they've already said they had but didn't?
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#443Another day, another company back peddling in a hurry after a predictable PR snafu, only to discover that they burnt good will for nothing.
You’d think they’d learn, but alas.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#444It’s still only opt-in. Users have to submit an application (including text message verification and other personal info) to gain access to E2E encryption. Zoom has shown that it does not care about privacy.
Are they going to use that information for marketing purposes? Free but only if you give them info seems too good to be true.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attempting to remove a word or phrase is exactly the kind of impractical behavior I expect from a virtue signaler. And with the annoyingly pedantic reasoning about how it's not technically signaling they way economists use the term is just the cherry on top. Virtue signaling is real, so is the misuse of the term, like every other, but so what.
This seems like pro-virtue-signalling-as-a-term virtue signalling. We get it, you want all the other people who use the term virtue signalling to like you. ALWAYS dismissive and reductive. ALWAYS. It's not a good faith argument. If you think someone is all-talk-no-action, accuse them of being performative. If you think someone's cause is dumb, attack that. You can call ANYBODY advocating for a viewpoint a virtue sign…
The problem is that the action condemned by the "virtue signaling" label is real, widespread, and destrucive. Always someone obnoxiously coming out of nowhere with some usually inconsequential moral high ground. I think where we will disagree is how destructive and common it is, and how much it needs to be called out. I personally think it's one of the worst traits of modern social media discourse.
Maybe some people are too quick with the term, there always will be people like that for any label. But just consider all the people just as tired of real conversation being shackled by "virtue signaling" as you are of being called a virtue signaler.
Also, you could write your disgruntled comments about any label. We are certainly way too quick to find racism where there isn't any. Yet there are also real racists out there complaining that the charge of racism is really getting on their nerves. Does that mean we stop charging people with racism when we see it? No, we're trying to call out unacceptable behavior.
If we're getting into pet peeves, mine is "gaslighting". Everything is "gaslighting" now. Accidentally spread a small inaccuracy? Gaslighting. Tell a public lie? You're now "gaslighting the world". Sharing my disagreement with you, like this comment? I'm gaslighting you.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#446I find this story arch with Zoom amusing: 1. Pre-COVID Zoom claims it has E2E encryption for everyone. 2. During COVID Zoom grows in popularity, which prompts journalists to learn that the claims that Zoom has E2E encryption are inaccurate. 3. Zoom admits that it never had true E2E encryption, but announces they will develop it and it will only be available for paying customers. 4. Zoom gets another wave of criticism…
> Given their track record I’d expect this timeline to repeat itself so after they release this E2E encryption feature, security researchers will discover that it’s not true E2E encryption again. I mean, you can already look at the design if you wish, it was disclosed by Alex Stamos: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1268061790954385408 TBH I'm sort of surprised they gave in to the new wave of criticism, their ar…
Their arguments for not giving it to free accounts was awful and the same trite which has been regurgitated for twenty years.
The real reason is they want to be able to hand data over to China / NSA / marketers.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are the 1%. 99% of people consider "privacy" a good value in abstract but will not lift a finger to protect their own privacy. It's virtue signalling.
I absolutely hate the term virtue signalling. It's always reductive and dismissive. If I am willing to go a LITTLE out of my way to protect my privacy, but not a LOT out of my way, am I "just virtue signalling"? If I continue to use a privacy-less platform (e.g. zoom/instagram/facebook) but just exercise caution with what I say using that medium, is that also "just virtue signalling"? I agree, evidence shows most peo…
Man you really hit the nail on the head with this. I’ve never been able to articulate why the term bothers me so much and you just absolutely nailed it.
It’s like the derogatory “social justice warrior.” What? It’s bad to give a damn about people and advocate on their behalf? If having empathy means I’m “an SJW” then I’ll gladly wear that moniker.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article gives such a bad argument that I feel I have now become more pro using the term than before. All of the arguments have huge exceptions or contradict each other. Signaling being a term used by some niche fields. We have that happen all the time. It’s how language evolves. The article says to use show off instead of virtue signaling. Right after the next argument is assuming the person is disingenuous. Whi…
I think a good way to put this is: Saying 'stop saying "virtue signalling"' is virtue signalling
At some point we are just circling a drain of nonsense when we make points like that.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s like “PC” or “fake news”, it was originally meaningful but got co-opted by people who use it in bad faith.
Just curious: Fake news was coined by Trump, so you're agreeing it was a meaningful usage?
It was always dismissive. Serious people used already existing terms like propaganda or yellow journalism.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I recall from their previous statement, it's not about spammers, it's about people sharing child abuse photos.
It's really more about being able to trace accounts to people period, as allowed through the Patriot Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Title_II:_Enhanced... Child pornography gets held up to the public a lot because it's a crime nobody can defend and walk away the same they were, no matter what you say. If you publicly contest this move for privacy reasons, you're automatically defending the worst child…
It isn't just that. People will cherry-pick the worst incident that ever happened on a platform involving children and compare everything else to that and say that if you support privacy you're supporting this everywhere.
The one, admittedly terrible incident, will shock people and they will push exaggerated means to "stop" it. Ones which just so happen to feed tons of information into the NSA machine.
People come up with stories of live-streamed child pornography too but do these children live in some parallel universe where crimes can be committed against them without recourse? What is the police doing? Did they not find suspicious behaviour in a neighbourhood? Did a counsellor not pick up on it?
Yeah sure, child pornography is awful but why is this part of the equation the only one that is ever mentioned? Why is it always about encryption or anonymity?