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

WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 303 posts

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#241

Post by Darmody »

ethbr0 wrote: post #220
Darmody wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. Sometimes more users is better than higher revenue. If those 200 million users have to choose between paying you $20/year or paying only $1 and joining a network with 1 billion users...they'll probably choose the later. Then you won't see those 4 billion dollars.

It depends on the business. If users cost $0.05 / user to support, that's very different than $1 / user. Software products scale... but they don't scale completely free.

Yes, of course, but we're talking about messaging apps like Whatsapp.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#242

Post by hiq »

base wrote: post #23
buro9 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is the one I found easiest to move. Business is already conducted well on email, and if it needs sync chat for larger orgs then Slack steps in, and if it needs personal private sync chat then Signal steps in.

The issue a lot times is clients, for example if you work with small business.

You're saying that email, text messages and phone calls don't work as well as WhatsApp for small businesses? I wouldn't have expected that, so I'm curious if you have examples to share.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#243

Post by vinay427 »

iagovar wrote: post #91
pmlnr wrote: post #90

A group of my friends asked to set up a groupchat recently, our requirements varied. Among them: - needs to be simple (not all of them are techies) - need to be possible to run on desktop without any mobile need - not Facebook (my requirement) So I went and set an XMPP server up on the same machine I have my email and webserver, and wrote a quick guide on how to install blabber.im (a Conversations fork), and register…

That's not my idea of simple. Telegram works for me.

Telegram has an incredibly primitive setup for their private conversations (E2E encryption). It doesn't work at all on desktop clients, and there's no supported way to backup or transfer devices so changing or losing a phone means you lose the conversation history with no option to backup, even preemptively.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#244

Post by vinay427 »

justusthane wrote: post #196
sprkwd wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't feel simple. I installed Signal.

Yes, Signal is good, but the parent said that one of their criteria was "need to be possible to run on desktop without any mobile need". Signal doesn't meet that.

Signal's desktop client, unlike WhatsApp and Telegram, at least supports E2E encrypted conversations while a phone is disconnected or off. You only need access to a phone when it falls out of sync which is increasingly rare. That's a huge plus in my book, and after drastic improvements over the last few years the desktop client now seems rather stable in my experience.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#245

Post by swiley »

egwor wrote: post #14

I'm so disappointed in this. Whatsapp is a functional tool. It was successful since it worked. Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. The voice calls are also a disaster. They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for…

> Whatsapp is a functional tool. It was successful since it worked.

No! Whatsapp is a service! Lots of people have been warning you that this is what happens when you get tools and services confused. I had warned people on here about this exact thing happening years ago when everyone thought it was the new hotness. People on this board were telling me I'm being overly cautious but this happens almost every time. Stop tying your identity and data to services if you're not 100% ok with them completely screwing you over!

Jabber has OMEMO and we have deltachat and autocrypt for email now. There is no reason to ever do this!

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#246

Post by joepie91_ »

deckard1 wrote: post #224
joepie91_ wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for anti-innovation? Yes, "capitalism". The problem with capitalism is that despite lofty claims about it spurring on innovation and such, it pretty much does the opposite. I don't imagine that this will be a popular comment on here, but alas, it is how it is. In…

> it pretty much does the opposite. I don't imagine that this will be a popular comment on here Silicon Valley and HN talk the talk of innovation, but they back monopolists. Time and again you will see this. Peter Thiel argues for this in his "Competition Is For Losers" talk. The constant theme is this: we want innovation so far as it can bring about abrupt and massive growth and lead to a single company dominating a…

You're correct that startups are designed with the intention of monopolization; however, they don't do so through innovation. They do so through "disruption", which is generally just ignoring regulations and applying a veneer of innovation to it, which is my point.

> We already reduce financial risk with bankruptcy laws.

This is not sufficient. Bankrupcy laws don't pay people's bills while they try out something new and uncertain.

> Reducing risk is one thing, but if you lean too far into that with VC money [...]

I'm arguing that VC money isn't a way to reduce risk. It just shifts the risk.

> Reducing risk isn't the key. You need skin in the game. But more important, you need people with drive. People that like winning more than they hate losing.

Sorry, but this is feel-good motivational-speaker nonsense with an undertone of toxic masculinity. Actual research into motivation shows pretty consistently that people are intrinsically motivated so long as their basic needs are met.

(Which capitalism doesn't.)

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#247

Post by laurex »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #53
polote wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ARPU that Facebook can make is higher than the average price people are willing to pay to get access to whatsapp. That's all, dont look further

People aren’t going to pay for simple services like WhatsApp in 2021. It’s as simple as that. Tech people with a high degree of suspicion and high disposable income are the exception. Even within that group, most people won’t put their money where their mouth is when given the option.

Marco Polo, a video messaging app that has taken a stance against ad-based business models and addictive design patterns, charges $60/year for subscription features (with a free version that is fully functional) and most of its subscribers are middle American, non-tech elites. I think it's wrong to say people won't pay- just that most people won't pay, but that doesn't mean you can't create a great business from those who do value your product.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#248

Post by lxgr »

justusthane wrote: post #194
lxgr wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The outrage is due to Facebook being involved. Does that make spreading what's effectively disinformation ok, though? I'd argue that there are more than enough angles to legitimately criticize Facebook. Why make one up?

No, it's legitimate to be a WhatsApp user and to not want Facebook to have more of your data.

How is Facebook having more of my data in this scenario?

Only if I'm talking a business on WhatsApp (which is optional and will hopefully stay that way), and only if the business I'm talking to uses Facebook as a service provider (instead of, say, Twilio or a self-hosted solution) does something change for me.

Facebook has indicated that businesses processing chats through Facebook will be clearly indicated as doing so, which hopefully puts enough pressure on businesses respecting their customers' privacy to not do so.

Businesses not respecting people's privacy can already choose to share arbitrary data with Facebook for advertisement purposes, so what changes?

Now if Facebook was to discontinue the existing E2E-encrypted business chat integration, that would be something to get upset about.

I'm really afraid that the only lesson that Facebook (and others) have learned in all of this is that TOS changes are best hidden in the fine print of opting into some user-visible new feature via some dark UX pattern, like e.g. Google commonly does.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#250

Post by sneak »

smashah wrote: post #176
sneak wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is the main communication infrastructure for the majority of the planet. The majority of the planet doesn't use the internet. Only a slight majority of the planet even has the option to use the internet.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was speaking about human beings, not the planet in a celestial/natural sense. Hope that makes sense.

So was I. Only a very slight majority of human beings have an option to access the internet, and a majority of human beings do not use the internet at all.
Post reply on HN