Wasn't there a push by the EU to force intercompatibility between messaging apps?
WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
331–340 of 1001 posts
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Like checking out Signlas Open Source code. What's preventing them from serving a backdoored version? xz was open source as well, that didn't stop the backdoor. There might be reproducible builds on android, but you can't even inspect the executable on iOS without jailbreaking.
You can instead install a FOSS fork of Signal like Molly [1] built by F-Droid directly from the source code [1] https://molly.im/
Isn’t that against Signal’s terms of service? Won’t they ban you?
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#333> When Facebook bought WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014, the messaging app had a clear focus. No ads, no games and no gimmicks. This sort of analysis is very surface-level I think. My impression is WhatsApp offered that by running on VC money and had no plan to run an actual business. That's not a question of focus. It's an unsustainable, please monetise me later land grab.
Respectfully, clearly you aren't familiar with Jan and Brian's history of public statements. Even for years after they were acquired by Meta, Jan refused to allow advertising and kept pushing the $1 dollar per user subscription fee. Sheryl nixed it b/c it was "not scalable." VC's may have the mindset that the founders will eventually acquiesce to ads, but also they didn't really care b/c all they wanted was an exit,…
> VC's may have the mindset that the founders will eventually acquiesce to ads
> history of public statements.
Actions speak louder. He did acquiesce - he sold to an ad-financed company.
> and hold that POV to this day.
You can hold any POV when nothing depends on it.
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's great content on YouTube but there's a lot of garbage. AI-generated slop, clickbait thumbnails/titles that actually don't payout, sales pitches, and plain old low-quality garbage. The lack of a thumbs down really makes it hard to avoid these. I realize that thumbs down is also used to punish "wrong" political viewpoints and companies, so it's a hard problem. But as a viewer who never uploads content, it only…
There's a "I don't want to see content like this" option you can signal on content and I find it works quite well
If only they would respect that when you tell them to hide shorts. Drives me crazy that they utterly refuse to let you turn those off.
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#335Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services? I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as conten…
I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…
The problem with YT premium is that they simply do not have content worth paying for. Even the very best content (say, videos where people give music lessons) is not actually something I would pay for. I don't mind paying for a streaming service - I pay for Netflix and will for the foreseeable future. But that's because Netflix has stuff where I actively want to watch it and would miss it if it was gone; YT does not.
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
The price is one of the few things that's always available when choosing between flights. Journey time is the other, and people will pay for a shorter journey or shorter layovers. Strangely, some of my colleagues have 'paid' (work's money, their time) extra to avoid Ryanair, when Ryanair has the only direct connection. This I find strange. Given the choice, I've long paid a little more if it means an Airbus plane, as…
I'll happily pay more for an Airbus plane or even an older Boeing model because I prefer not to crash and die.
[deleted]
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Like checking out Signlas Open Source code. What's preventing them from serving a backdoored version? xz was open source as well, that didn't stop the backdoor. There might be reproducible builds on android, but you can't even inspect the executable on iOS without jailbreaking.
You can instead install a FOSS fork of Signal like Molly [1] built by F-Droid directly from the source code [1] https://molly.im/
[deleted]
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. That's not even remotely close to being true. Plenty of people would order a $25 dish at a place and not like it. Not finishing the dish, or throwing a way a half eaten candy bar or bad-tasting-$6-cup of coffee is very normal. Plenty of (if most) food is meh or not enjoyable. It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.
If you're routinely buying and throwing out $25 plates of food, then you're in a different income bracket than many people. And then, yes, avoiding a $3 app is more nonsensical than for most.
Plenty of university students around me who will order a $8 boba tea and be disappointed that the boba is cooked poorly or the milk ratio isn't good, and then do it again a couple days later.
But the difference is that food elicits cravings - you buy it because you imagine how good it'll be if it's done right this time and your body pressures you to buy it. Apps don't do that.
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people would never pay for software. I see this and not see this. See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. not see = Steam
Also, do people not pay for it because there are still so many free competing services? If everything goes the way of ads and (for lack of a better term) enshittification, could consumer attitudes change?
There is a market for paid software services with a promise of not enshittifying. Kagi and Fastmail are two examples.
Now, this market probably isn’t going to put you in the Fortune 500, but is enough to run a profitable business.
Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signal also claims the same: > We can't read your messages or listen to your calls, and no one else can either. Should we be suspicious of Signal as well?
Sure you should be suspicious. You should always be suspicious. Especially if it's free. And you can do something to calm your suspicions. Like checking out Signlas Open Source code.
How would that calm suspicion if you're not arr/ign-orant and understand that continuous security audit is practically impossible at an individual level?