81–90 of 120 posts
Companies like Facebook have a very simple way to protest the current crypto laws. They could publicly announce they are going to disable any crypto for each and every politician and their family members when they vote or act against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
France was for a long time until recently though, the current situation is the exception.
That's not even an attempt at a dark pattern nudging you towards one option...it's just do you agree or do you agree.
Hard to trust companies that think that's how consent works...
Slightly off-topic, but for European readers: Is how Facebook is trying to off-load cookie control onto the user's browser configuration anything close to compliant with law? This is the only instance of a company I have seen not bothering with 'Accept' vs some other complicated choice dialog (and I only saw this because I was annoyed by WhatsApp forcing the TOS change and, lo, they seem to be forcing 'Allow all' for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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…
WTF is going on with their cookie dialog? Surely that's not even remotely legal? There is just agree and a second dialog with guidance on how to clear cookies per browser (???) and a second agree button. That's not even an attempt at a dark pattern nudging you towards one option...it's just do you agree or do you agree. Hard to trust companies that think that's how consent works... https://imgur.com/a/Ya1XBvG
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.
As a user I find this section very intriguing. ************************* "Can WhatsApp work with law enforcement without traceability? WhatsApp respects the important work law enforcement does to keep people safe. Our dedicated team reviews and responds to valid law enforcement requests. We respond to valid requests by providing the limited categories of information available to us, consistent with applicable law and…
there have been atleast 2 instances in the past few months where Indian govt agencies were able to release whatsapp messages of their opponents. It is safe to say that if you are doing anything remotely of interest to the govt, you should not be using this tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true - that loss was based on employee compensation due to the size of the deal and realized stock appreciation. WhatsApp could have covered operating costs indefinitely from user $1 payments.
Let’s be honest, nobody would have paid that $1 (you had a free year before you had to pay IIRC). Everyone would have switched to another free service.
In my country (Argentina) it became a de-facto platform for selling for small businesses, grocery stores and restaurants. There are a couple of 3rd party e-commerce platforms that generate the order and then simply drop it through WhatsApp so you can continue through there and handle the payment manually.
... There are many ways in which WhatsApp could have explored making profits. Facebook simply made it stagnate.