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

Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

thegeekyglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#21

Post by amirmc »

kevcampb wrote: post #17

Why would any privacy advocate want to block this deal? I can only see this deal being beneficial for privacy in the long run. Facebook are unable to collect data from the service without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus. It's going to put such a huge unrecoverable dent in Facebook's finances that it will be a significant long term disadvantage to them. If you are a privacy advocate, wait until…

> "... without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus."

How many people are even aware of what the ToS says? I don't recall a mass exodus from Google when they merged their privacy policies so I don't expect to see it here (for similar reasons - where would they go?).

Edit: > "... then jump ship and bring your friends with you."

You make it sound like this is easy. It isn't. That's why networks have value and are hard to build.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#22

Post by Eye_of_Mordor »

koosa wrote: post #8

Immediately after striking Facebook-WattsApp deal, Koum had mentioned in one of his tweets that users' privacy and security is their top concern and I hope he sticks to his guns.

He wouldn't have sold to Facebook if users' privacy and security was his top concern. Money was likely his top concern.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#23

Post by amirmc »

stingraycharles wrote: post #15
netcan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one' This gets mentioned a lot. I don't quite understand the logic. Say WhatsApp cost users $3.99, when Facebook buys them for 5 billion $3.99s what difference does it make? Facebook gets 3990 messages, a list of people you know, groups and whatever else. They can now add those to their vast collection of stuff they know about you, Facebook profile or not. What do the $3…

It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead. In this case, however, you paid for the Whatsapp app, but with Facebook acquiring Whatsapp you'll also pay with your personal data.

> "It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead."

This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#24

Post by amirmc »

antr wrote: post #12
koosa wrote: post #8

Immediately after striking Facebook-WattsApp deal, Koum had mentioned in one of his tweets that users' privacy and security is their top concern and I hope he sticks to his guns.

He just sold WhatsApp to a company that he has no control over. His word is no good over this decision.

He's joining the Board of Directors, so he does have much more control than most.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#25

Post by enscr »

amirmc wrote: post #23
stingraycharles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead. In this case, however, you paid for the Whatsapp app, but with Facebook acquiring Whatsapp you'll also pay with your personal data.

> "It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead." This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?

The meme maybe a cliche but it's true. For a for-profit company, there are 4 outcomes :

- Paid without ads : Whatsapp till now. Ideal for personal privacy

- Paid with ads : Bad for users. If whatsapp was doing this, it won't stay hidden for long. The breadcrumbs of your data will lead to whatsapp's door.

- Free without ads : Bad for company

- Free with ads : Facebook. Bad for some, good for others.

Point being, respectable companies that are in for the long run will probably have a clearly defined business plan i.e. sell the product to the user or sell ads to the user. If it's doing both, it becomes evident.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#26

Post by enscr »

kevcampb wrote: post #14
enscr wrote: post #2

The important part from the article is : "until there is a clearer understanding of how the company intends to use the personal data of WhatsApp’s 450 million users" FB would be drooling over all the messages, pics & videos on Whatsapp. For person-to-person communication, I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one. If I wanted the latter, there are no shortage of options. I wonder how Whatsapp spells out the u…

Why not read the ToS? It's pretty clear and very user friendly. The short version - they don't store your data, and there is no right for Facebook to get that data historically. That's not to say they can't change it in future, but I'm sure if they do there will be a massive exodus from the network. And to further clarify on your comment - whatsapp is a paid for app, not advert supported. They only charge the iPhone…

Thanks for interpreting the ToS.

That pricing model you are talking about is old. They now make the first year free & charge $1/year after that for all platforms.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#28

Post by enscr »

amirmc wrote: post #24
antr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He just sold WhatsApp to a company that he has no control over. His word is no good over this decision.

He's joining the Board of Directors, so he does have much more control than most.

Sure he'll get a chair but that's where it stops. FB, the company is about targeted advertisements based on your profile, activity etc. There's no reason why they won't do that with Whatsapp. They have most definitely not paid $19 billion to get only 99 cent revenue every year. They perhaps are eyeing for much more per user.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#29

Post by sillysaurus3 »

amirmc wrote: post #23
stingraycharles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead. In this case, however, you paid for the Whatsapp app, but with Facebook acquiring Whatsapp you'll also pay with your personal data.

> "It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead." This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?

Does Apple sell user data?

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#30

Post by antr »

amirmc wrote: post #24
antr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He just sold WhatsApp to a company that he has no control over. His word is no good over this decision.

He's joining the Board of Directors, so he does have much more control than most.

Wouldn't that be, to some extent, a conflict of interest? Given that the other shareholders who have paid for WhatsApp want to get a return on their investment, the Board Member who has benefited from the sale is blocking existing shareholders from benefiting from such acquisition.

Lets remember that as a board member he has a fiduciary duty to FBs shareholders, and that means making sound ($) decisions.

Post reply on HN