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

What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

faq.whatsapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#71

Post by ProAm »

pegasus wrote: post #59
ProAm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that but a independent messaging app seems perfectly safe for FB to purchase. Instagram a little different but I never saw the government being concerned or potentially not allow this one to go through. That is why I was curious about the OPs perspective because maybe they did see something (not counting hindsight and that FB is a terrible company, but only in the moment)

It's simple: OP's perspective is that even though the purchase was not stopped, it should have been. That to you it seemed a perfectly safe purchase is completely irellevant to his argument.

I would like to know why he thinks it should have been stopped. At the time of that purchase I think any messaging platform could have been sold to anyone and not been stopped (imo).

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#72

Post by eptcyka »

capableweb wrote: post #5
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's big enough that we don't even have to stop fighting them while we support them in this endeavour.

This is something I don't understand that continues to happen in politics, technology and many other facets of life. Why do you have to either fully support or fully be against a entity? You can selectively like some things someone does while not liking other things they do, same goes for corporations. You also don't have to justify bad things by listing good things they've also done, you can just like the good thing…

In my humble opinion, this is partly why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater. Much more time is spent arguing optics and deciding who's truly the scotsman in the current crop of leaders than what policies are best suited to achieve goals the electorate might be interested in reaching.

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#73

Post by ProAm »

akarma wrote: post #56
ProAm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but I didnt see anything in this acquisition that would trigger antitrust (WhatsApp only, I did see issues with Instagram). And independent messaging app that didnt have ads seems like a safe purchase from a legal standpoint. That is why I asked the OP why he was surprised it was allowed.

(I'm not the above commenter but also disagreed with your prior comment) > The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted. I understand and agree with your take now, but this sentence from your last comment seemed like a different line of thinking. If a creator can just sell it to anyone because it's a private company, that's false and that's a different argu…

Makes sense I should have been more clear (also why I said I wasnt trying to be snarky because I could easily read my first comment as such). I think at the time this sale happened any messaging service could have been sold to any company without government stoppage. The anti competitive guidelines are as such:

    - agreements between competitors, also referred to as horizontal conduct  
  
   - monopolization, also referred to as single firm conduct
I think this sale would still go through today as for FB still has messenger and Whatsapp as separate products and (arguably) still free. I havent thought about it Apple purchased it. I think that still may have gone through too unless they stopped the app working on Android.

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#74

Post by pointless123 »

Ellipse0934 wrote: post #16
eric__cartman wrote: post #2

Facebook talking about respecting human rights and privacy... If you want to make a truly secure messaging platform release the client and server side source code or gtfo.

Even if they release their server side source code how can you ensure that the deployed version matches the source ? Eventually there is always a thread of trust. The point however is that the government of India is forcing private corporations to break privacy related measures to suppress civil liberties.

So elected govs should listen to corporations. no thanks. i can over throw my gov but not evil facebook

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#75

Post by armagon »

Ellipse0934 wrote: post #20
capableweb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I don't understand that continues to happen in politics, technology and many other facets of life. Why do you have to either fully support or fully be against a entity? You can selectively like some things someone does while not liking other things they do, same goes for corporations. You also don't have to justify bad things by listing good things they've also done, you can just like the good thing…

Most political systems tend to converge into a two-party system. I think the internet has made people more vocal but access to opposing and nuanced viewpoints has made a lot of people grey. I know that's the case for me, not sure if it encapsulates the majority.

Widely used voting systems converge on two parties. The worst offender is the first-past-the-post system. Instant-run-off voting is better, but still converges on two parties.

Wish I had a good citation for you, but I do have an try-it-yourself guide on voting systems to link to: https://ncase.me/ballot/

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#76

Post by jean_tta »

eptcyka wrote: post #72
capableweb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I don't understand that continues to happen in politics, technology and many other facets of life. Why do you have to either fully support or fully be against a entity? You can selectively like some things someone does while not liking other things they do, same goes for corporations. You also don't have to justify bad things by listing good things they've also done, you can just like the good thing…

In my humble opinion, this is partly why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater. Much more time is spent arguing optics and deciding who's truly the scotsman in the current crop of leaders than what policies are best suited to achieve goals the electorate might be interested in reaching.

Is it "most" or is it UKUSA?

France is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

Germany is not a two party theater and suffers from the same thing.

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#78

Post by CodesInChaos »

eptcyka wrote: post #72
capableweb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I don't understand that continues to happen in politics, technology and many other facets of life. Why do you have to either fully support or fully be against a entity? You can selectively like some things someone does while not liking other things they do, same goes for corporations. You also don't have to justify bad things by listing good things they've also done, you can just like the good thing…

In my humble opinion, this is partly why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater. Much more time is spent arguing optics and deciding who's truly the scotsman in the current crop of leaders than what policies are best suited to achieve goals the electorate might be interested in reaching.

> why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater

Is that true? It's certainly not the case in Germany, where we have ~6 relevant parties at the moment. I'm pretty sure other European nations, like Italy, often form their governments from multi party coalitions as well.

In the US I'd primarily blame the way votes are counted (majority of majorities). I'd expect other parties to rise to relevance if a different voting system was used, e.g. parties getting seats in the house of representatives proportional to their votes, instead of composing it from the winners of the individual districts (or a hybrid, like in Germany).

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#79

Post by mind-blight »

eptcyka wrote: post #72
capableweb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I don't understand that continues to happen in politics, technology and many other facets of life. Why do you have to either fully support or fully be against a entity? You can selectively like some things someone does while not liking other things they do, same goes for corporations. You also don't have to justify bad things by listing good things they've also done, you can just like the good thing…

In my humble opinion, this is partly why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater. Much more time is spent arguing optics and deciding who's truly the scotsman in the current crop of leaders than what policies are best suited to achieve goals the electorate might be interested in reaching.

The two party system is usually a side effect of first past the post voting systems. Since elections only allow voters to choose one candidate, a third party candidate end up splitting the vote and taking votes away from the candidate who is closest to their political stance.

People see that and decide the rational choice is to vote for the candidate that they hate the least with the highest chance of driving, and third parties merge to form coalitions that actually have a chance of winning. Rinse and repeat until you only have two parties. (CPG Grey did a great video on this https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo)

Check out Ireland for how to set up a voting system that doesn't converge to two parties

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#80

Post by pegasus »

ProAm wrote: post #71
pegasus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simple: OP's perspective is that even though the purchase was not stopped, it should have been. That to you it seemed a perfectly safe purchase is completely irellevant to his argument.

I would like to know why he thinks it should have been stopped. At the time of that purchase I think any messaging platform could have been sold to anyone and not been stopped (imo).

Again, it's simple: he says it should have been stopped, not that it could have been stopped. Or you could read it as "in a better system, this purchase would have been seen as anticompetitive and stopped". I happen to agree with the sentiment.
Post reply on HN