61–70 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, very old news. They also blocked URLs to competitors claiming the links were spam. Even if you legit posted the link, Facebook didn't notify you the message didn't send. It just failed silently.
> They also blocked URLs to competitors claiming the links were spam. Even if you legit posted the link, Facebook didn't notify you the message didn't send. It just failed silently. Any links to more reading on this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And also closed source, so no real way of auditing this promise.
Do you trust that the source code for the Signal iOS app on Github is the source code of the application you're running on your phone? All you really have to go on is the word of each company.
On one hand, we have moxie and a team of people with no evidence against their integrity. On the other hand, a culture that responds to criticism with aggression [1] and then responds to criticism of that by deleting their communications [2].
TL; DR It's reasonable to trust Signal's iOS closed-source app while distrusting Facebook Messenger's also closed-source secret mode app.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/technology/facebook-leake...
[2] https://fortune.com/2018/03/31/facebook-employees-are-report...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, very old news. They also blocked URLs to competitors claiming the links were spam. Even if you legit posted the link, Facebook didn't notify you the message didn't send. It just failed silently.
> They also blocked URLs to competitors claiming the links were spam. Even if you legit posted the link, Facebook didn't notify you the message didn't send. It just failed silently. Any links to more reading on this?
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-facebook-is-blocking-go...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They also blocked URLs to competitors claiming the links were spam. Even if you legit posted the link, Facebook didn't notify you the message didn't send. It just failed silently. Any links to more reading on this?
Anecdata - I remember that.
When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started seeing ads for diapers. After that, I assume anything I'm doing on the internet is being data mined for advertising or some other source of revenue.
I think most people, at some level, know this and accept it. I think the shock comes when you think how long this information is kept for, and what that means. i.e. each year they can advertise age appropriate birthday presents, a few years from now they might get adverts for children party suppliers. As they grow up college saving funds, colleges, trips to Disney land, first cars can all be targeted to you at just t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they didn't scan and detect child porn, there would be articles about how they're letting people get away with sharing child porn on Messenger. It seems there's no way for Facebook to win here, given that people want both complete privacy and also no illicit activity on the platform.
> If they didn't scan and detect child porn, there would be articles about how they're letting people get away with sharing child porn on Messenger. No there wouldn’t be. Do you hear that about iMessage, SMS, email or the numerous other services?
This is done with PhotoDNA, a system used by many large tech companies for child pornography detection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They also blocked URLs to competitors claiming the links were spam. Even if you legit posted the link, Facebook didn't notify you the message didn't send. It just failed silently. Any links to more reading on this?
Here's one from back when Google+ launched and they blocked G+ invite links for about a week.[1] If I recall correctly, there was something similar that happened about a year later where Messenger messages with a G+ profile URL would silently fail to send. I can't remember the details on that though. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-facebook-is-blocking-go...
> Some speculate this could be a Google plot to spur distrust for Facebook while bringing more attention to Google+. I'm not sure the search giant would go that far, but I think it's telling the company's employees chose to post about the issue on their own social network rather than contacting Facebook directly and asking for an explanation.
When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started seeing ads for diapers. After that, I assume anything I'm doing on the internet is being data mined for advertising or some other source of revenue.
Would you rather see ads for cat food? (Even though you don't have a cat.) This is not a rhetorical question: please answer it. The reason for this question is that even though you don't have a cat lots of people do! It's absolutely not a false dichotomy. Either people who have no cats must see cat food advertisements (bad choice), or cat food advertisements must be shown to people who probably have a cat (better cho…
Yes. I do not own a cat but would prefer to see cat food ads.
I would suggest however, that cat food brands should advertise on pet channels on Youtube, or on pet related blogs perhaps. This allows targeting, but without collecting data about the users, many of whom do not know enough about online advertising to provide informed consent.
The best adverts I've seen were from Carbon[1] and Fusion (which seem to have merged now?). They were well targeted, unobtrusive, respected my privacy, and generally fit well with the content I was reading around the web.
When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started seeing ads for diapers. After that, I assume anything I'm doing on the internet is being data mined for advertising or some other source of revenue.
Google does not use the content of your emails to target ads: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 Ads where? Do you just mean display ads on the web? If so, your browser likely ended up on a list for diaper ads by some other means. Top of mind: - Did ever add a baby-related product to a shopping cart on a retail site? - Did you visit baby-related websites? Less likely, but possible,if your browser cookie was…
http://adage.com/article/digital/google-stop-reading-emails-...
Ah yes, the "Think of the children" [1] argument. This is the favorite argument of censorship [2] lawmakers, dictators and everyone who wants to destroy personal liberties and privacy. They always invoke "think of the children" arguments because you look like a monster if you oppose it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
[2]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-31/wolf-internet-censorsh...