WhatsApp delays privacy changes following backlash(p.dw.com)
p.dw.com
WhatsApp delays privacy changes following backlash
https://p.dw.com/p/3nzYg
399 comments
Technically it's not a donation, it's a 0% interest loan that doesn't need to be repaid until 2068. And $50M was the initial amount, but it's up to ~$100M now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation
This is a tangent, but what's the financial rationale for setting up this kind of an arrangement instead of a donation?
To whom? To the 'donor' (as it were) it's probably (jurisdiction varies, IANA tax advisor, etc.) a decent inheritance tax avoidance (obligatory 'as opposed to evasion') - helps out a cause he believes in, while leaving the capital (hopefully/in theory) for his inheritants.
To the recipient.. I don't know why you'd prefer it to a (stipulation-free) donation, but in general it's probably easier to get big loans than big donations.
To the recipient.. I don't know why you'd prefer it to a (stipulation-free) donation, but in general it's probably easier to get big loans than big donations.
I think it actually is more helpful to the business to get a loan instead of a donation. With a huge donation you can do whatever you want with it and may overinvest or spend wastefully, until the cash reserves run out. A loan means that the business has X-many years to be self-sufficient. So I think it helps the business's culture as it's developing.
This is like the awful paternalistic version of my thought. Ha. My guess is that there's a implied agreement, "keep to your promises about how Signal will be run and developed and eventually the loan will be forgiven altogether; try to burn me on those promises, like Zuck did, and that'll be a $100 million gamble." And sure, with inflation, the longer they're around, the less daunting the figure will be, but that may be the point, or the loan could be refreshed with more money that just keeps the prospect of repayment a perpetually serious prospect (it was doubled once already).
Oh, I like that explanation better actually. They very well may have an agreement like that where he'll forgive the loan as long as he's still happy with how they're running it
Since it's 0% interest you could probably make enough profit by investing it in the stock market instead that you could pay inheritance tax and still get more than the initial amount out of it after 50 years. So I would not call this a tax avoidance scheme, it seems more like "help this cause I care about and if it becomes successful enough to be able to pay my children back then that's great".
Oh absolutely, but we're comparing donations and loans to the same cause, not arbitrary 0% loans and more efficient/profitable 'schemes' right?
Sir that's a 300 IQ move, admirable.
> while leaving the capital (hopefully/in theory) for his inheritants.
With inflation $100M will probably buy an ice pop in 50 years.
With inflation $100M will probably buy an ice pop in 50 years.
In the event of a sale, the loan remains and will either be paid out or carried on to the new owner.
This is an extremely good point. So many small idealistic companies are bought out, with the "baggage" of a big loan anyone who did want to buy out Signal for profit would have to now pay 100 million dollars.
If I had oodles of money I'd probably do this, "I'm just giving you this money now, but if you got bought up by someone without those same ideals they need to pay up.”
Given it’s the former WhatsApp CEO even more reason to be skeptical.
If I had oodles of money I'd probably do this, "I'm just giving you this money now, but if you got bought up by someone without those same ideals they need to pay up.”
Given it’s the former WhatsApp CEO even more reason to be skeptical.
Why the skepticism? Sounds great to me.
I'm reading it as, "Given it’s the former WhatsApp CEO [who's already been burned once, they have] even more reason to be skeptical [of acquirers holding to the values of the acquired]".
Loans get paid back... donations don't. An organization that takes donations (like wikipedia) will have to keep asking for donations... while an organization that has a debt can take the time to figure out a revenue model not driven by ads to allow them to repay the debt.
Wikipedia's average donation is tiny. That's why they keep asking. The way you've written this it suggests that if instead of giving wikipedia a $2 donation, we have them $2 no-interest loans, weed be helping them prepare for the future and they wouldn't have to ask for more donations (or loans) from us. That's not how it works.
We went on this tangent yesterday in this very same discussion. HN needs better search.
"In January 2009, Koum bought an iPhone and realized that the then seven-month-old App Store was about to spawn a whole new industry of apps. He visited his friend Alex Fishman and talked about developing an app.[11] Koum almost immediately chose the name WhatsApp because it sounded like "what's up", and a week later on his birthday, Feb. 24, 2009, he incorporated WhatsApp Inc. in California."
..
"In 2014, Koum and Brian Acton agreed to sell WhatsApp to Facebook for approximately US$19 billion in cash and stock.[9] Forbes estimates that Acton held over 20% stake in the company, making his net worth around $3.8 billion.[12] According to Acton's personal Twitter feed, he was turned down for employment by both Twitter and Facebook in 2009."
3.8B in 5 years of work? It's scarcely conceivable to me after 20 years of salaried grind. These people are well-connected (fine), but they're also geniuses at spotting opportunities.
..
"In 2014, Koum and Brian Acton agreed to sell WhatsApp to Facebook for approximately US$19 billion in cash and stock.[9] Forbes estimates that Acton held over 20% stake in the company, making his net worth around $3.8 billion.[12] According to Acton's personal Twitter feed, he was turned down for employment by both Twitter and Facebook in 2009."
3.8B in 5 years of work? It's scarcely conceivable to me after 20 years of salaried grind. These people are well-connected (fine), but they're also geniuses at spotting opportunities.
Geniuses, maybe, but also exceedingly lucky - right place, right time, right idea, right connections etc :)
The tech behind whatsapp was pretty cool IIRC .. that's how I got interested in Erlang/Beam. These people were not your average CS grad or even your average googler.
WhatsApp could have been coded in any language. The first version was a very simple app but it promised free SMS alternative with some great marketing campaign. Still amazing how they managed to grow the user base using this marketing when there were tons of apps doing the same thing.
I don't believe the backend would be as scalable (with the same amount of ease) on JVM (Akka) or straight C/C++. Erlang, Beam bring a lot of value to the table for this specific application:
http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2...
Also, I got interested in Elixir/Phoenix after I learned about what WhatsApp accomplished.
I'm a bit surprised people are downvoting a technical point on HN but whatever.
http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2...
Also, I got interested in Elixir/Phoenix after I learned about what WhatsApp accomplished.
I'm a bit surprised people are downvoting a technical point on HN but whatever.
Where can I read more about this?
The brilliance wasn't in building the core software but rather leveraging the right technology for scalable low cost messaging. WhatsApp's core messaging infrastructure is built on top of a modified version of the open source project Ejabberd. The technology heavy lifting has largely been done by Erlang and Ejabberd. In my opinion WhatsApp was brilliant to leverage those existing systems - but it wasn't the computer science skills that made them successful.
I thought they did some fine tuning to the BEAM VM to get an extreme amount of scale. I didn't know people had Ejabberd deployments at such high scale (2 million+ concurrent connections per server) in that time period. I never got into details of scaling XMPP so you might be right.
Plenty of people sink years and life savings into opportunities that never take off. It's like saying that roulette winners are geniuses at sensing red.
So the takeaway from your statement is that entrepreneurial success is akin to playing Roulette? That's awfully cynical, enough to put off even trying.
He seems like an amazing guy and that we need more people like him in tech, esp in leadership positions. However, I'm not sure why he was so against monetization. If whatsapp was still an independent company, they would have to monetize somehow. Why cannot FB monetize? As a user of whatsapp I wouldn't even care if the showed ads in big group chats. As long as there would be zero tracking or leaking of data and ads would be solely based on location and maybe chat info.
> If whatsapp was still an independent company, they would have to monetize somehow.
No, they wouldn't. This thinking is what has lead the world where it is.
Say you have 2 billion (10^9) users paying $1 per year. You follow inflation. That's 2 billion a year. That covers a lot of workforce, and a lot of servers.
This idea of infinite growth boggles me - how can people with math background insist on such impossible thought?
No, they wouldn't. This thinking is what has lead the world where it is.
Say you have 2 billion (10^9) users paying $1 per year. You follow inflation. That's 2 billion a year. That covers a lot of workforce, and a lot of servers.
This idea of infinite growth boggles me - how can people with math background insist on such impossible thought?
Do we have different definitions of monetization? Because to me that's exactly what charging $1 per year sounds like.
Fair point. The problem with the word `monetization` probably comes from recent times, when it sort of became the corporate bs equivalent of squeezing more money out of the same thing by adding ads, selling data, etc.
I'm unable to find the exact quote but soon after the WhatsApp acquisition, when the $1 fee was waived there was a message that went along the lines of "imagine how much more money WhatsApp could make". If someone has it, please send a link.
I'm unable to find the exact quote but soon after the WhatsApp acquisition, when the $1 fee was waived there was a message that went along the lines of "imagine how much more money WhatsApp could make". If someone has it, please send a link.
Good luck having 2 billion people paying you $1 when there are free alternatives.
I agree. I've been switching messaging apps (first on Windows in the 90s then on phones in the 00s) when a new free one with better features appeared or the previous one asked for money. Then WhatsApp got such a user base to make switching nearly impossible. But if they really enforced the $1 payment everybody would have switched to something else.
$1 a year ? There'll be plenty of takers even in India for this.
There are free alternatives for food (soup kitchens), yet people still go to restaurants.
I didn't say people are not willing to pay money to use an app that has free alternatives. I said good luck finding 2 billion such people. Whatsapp today is used by everyone. 8 year old kids and 85 year olds. The network effect. Its biggest asset is the number of users which makes it easy to communicate with everyone you know on it (not everywhere but in many countries). If they charged money it would've been different. It's not about the money. Everyone can afford $1/year. Even kids in poor countries. But not everyone has access to a credit card for example. Many wouldn't bother and use a free alternative like FB messenger or Telegram or whatever.
When you have that many users, their yearly dues is no longer as valuable to the company and its partners, as user data.
Honestly, up until a couple of years ago, WhatsApp wasn't free for iPhone. Yet people still downloaded it and bought it
As popular as it is in Europe today, I imagine they may have actually reached a number like that
It was this popular in 2012 already. For Android users first year was free and then you could be charged €0.89/year. I knew paying customers and was willing to do the same. It's a great product at a great price without ads, just take my money. I'd rather pay for a service than be monetized in exchange for using it.
BTW, they had just 50 engineers when FB bought them with 450M users (+1M/day) and they supported more devices back then. Just with those costs and the network effect, keeping the subscription model would have meant a solid source of honest revenue.
BTW, they had just 50 engineers when FB bought them with 450M users (+1M/day) and they supported more devices back then. Just with those costs and the network effect, keeping the subscription model would have meant a solid source of honest revenue.
10% of that is 200 million.
5% of that is 50 million.
5% of that is 50 million.
I paid a buck when I got whatsapp, I see my first chat backup from October 2012 :) I did so because my friends were on whatsapp, and I think all of us would have paid a buck a year if that's what the model evolved to.
Unfortunately, the world turned towards 1) freemium, and 2) 'consumer as a product', and it will not be easy to roll back the free chat. But I think it is possible. Make signal survive for 2 years based on donations, or this 1 buck a year/month, and we may be able to have a long term alternative to whatsapp.
Unfortunately, the world turned towards 1) freemium, and 2) 'consumer as a product', and it will not be easy to roll back the free chat. But I think it is possible. Make signal survive for 2 years based on donations, or this 1 buck a year/month, and we may be able to have a long term alternative to whatsapp.
> As a user of whatsapp I wouldn't even care if the showed ads in big group chats. As long as there would be zero tracking or leaking of data and ads would be solely based on location and maybe chat info.
For Christ's sake NO!
For Christ's sake NO!
WhatsApp had a $1 annual fee and 400M users prior to FB acquisition. Just FYI.
I know that but it's not that they had $400M in revenue. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25666270
FB never charged for whatsapp for a good reason.
FB never charged for whatsapp for a good reason.
Even if you downloaded all ads in advance and ran all the logic client side, basing ads on chat info would inevitably leak information if the ad was ever clicked.
True but I'm sure they can come up with something. Maybe unclickable ads like "buy dominos pizza, only today 5% off" or "watch NBA on Prime today 7pm"...
Unclickable ads are a super interesting idea, I've never thought about that. It would change so much of the internet if ads were that simplistic.
Inevitably advertisers will want to measure the effectiveness of their advertising, so "use code XYZ at checkout" will, and "mention this ad" could, still leak targeting information.
Because Facebook acquired WhatsApp we never got to see what would have happened with WhatsApp as more and more people discovered it. WhatsApp was charging users some token amount like $1 before it merged with Facebook. Could that sort of small donation model work to keep a service like WhatsApp (or Signal) running? If 50 million people donate $1 to Signal, does he get his $50 million donation refunded. Shares of FB are down^1 while shares of SIGL are up (again).^2,3
1. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB/history?p=FB
2. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SIGL/history?p=SIGL
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25770464 <-- Suggested reading before replying ;)
1. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB/history?p=FB
2. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SIGL/history?p=SIGL
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25770464 <-- Suggested reading before replying ;)
SIGL is not the makers of the Signal communication app. SIGL is a company called Signal Advance (https://www.signaladvance.com/), which makes medical and industrial systems.
Signal, the app (https://signal.org/en/), is a 501c3 nonprofit.
Signal, the app (https://signal.org/en/), is a 501c3 nonprofit.
Wikipedia ran in 2018 on about US$ ~80 million, can't see why WhatsApp or Signal can't keep up a messaging service for much more than that.
Even more given WhatsApp history of being a very efficient company, supporting hundreds of millions of users with 50 engineers.
Even more given WhatsApp history of being a very efficient company, supporting hundreds of millions of users with 50 engineers.
At this point Facebook's best interest is to sell WhatsApp or make it a separate entity, completely out of Facebook's reach and control if they want to win users trust again.
I can't really see why Facebook would care; even if they drive off 50% of WhatsApp's userbase, that's 50% they get to keep, analyze, and monetize. If they made WhatsApp a separate entity, they lose 100% of its users. Half of something is better than all of nothing.
The acquisition cost of WhatsApp is sunk at this point—the only thing left is to wring as much money out of it as possible.
The acquisition cost of WhatsApp is sunk at this point—the only thing left is to wring as much money out of it as possible.
It's putting them at risk with regulators.
Re (2), it was $850 million.
[deleted]
I think you meant $850 million stock option grants
typo: $850 million.
delays not cancels..
Either ways, my WhatsApp was deleted yesterday, FB early last year...
Now I just need to wean off of Google...
Either ways, my WhatsApp was deleted yesterday, FB early last year...
Now I just need to wean off of Google...
For maybe the first time I can recall I wasn’t able to locate a webpage via google search yesterday.
(Described in my last comment if anyone knows the source)
Seemed like every attempt to better describe it as a query took me further from what I was looking for.
Results were all (from my perspective) SEO hijacking, clearly having nothing to do with my search. And that was behind the wall of advertisements and their own google cards of noise they plug up front. Going to the next page of results was surprisingly difficult.
First time I’ve considered, maybe this is the wrong tool for traversing the memory palace of one’s interactions with the internet.
(Described in my last comment if anyone knows the source)
Seemed like every attempt to better describe it as a query took me further from what I was looking for.
Results were all (from my perspective) SEO hijacking, clearly having nothing to do with my search. And that was behind the wall of advertisements and their own google cards of noise they plug up front. Going to the next page of results was surprisingly difficult.
First time I’ve considered, maybe this is the wrong tool for traversing the memory palace of one’s interactions with the internet.
Based on my experience on search engines recently, it seems like SEO hijacking has gotten easier recently. Queries that would pull up the page I was expecting are now delivering 5 or so copycat pages before the actual one I'm looking for.
Honestly I've stopped using Chrome and always use DDG, and Firefox is my default web browser now. I've ditched Chrome for good as Firefox is just as good and I feel less creeped out.
I think the era of "free stuff for your data" is over. People have witnessed the true cost of a zero barrier social network services which is the division of society and people creating their own realities and clashing with others (ex. flat earthers, trump etc.)
Going forward I expect lot of these decentralized, run-by-donations services to trend upwards. We will still have FB, Google, and the likes but as they lose users their pervasiveness will have to increase to compensate for the loss in users.
This is good. This is what blockchain should've been but couldn't.
I think the era of "free stuff for your data" is over. People have witnessed the true cost of a zero barrier social network services which is the division of society and people creating their own realities and clashing with others (ex. flat earthers, trump etc.)
Going forward I expect lot of these decentralized, run-by-donations services to trend upwards. We will still have FB, Google, and the likes but as they lose users their pervasiveness will have to increase to compensate for the loss in users.
This is good. This is what blockchain should've been but couldn't.
> I think the era of "free stuff for your data" is over.
I don’t think it is, but I share your optimism that perhaps people are starting to realise and understand the real cost of “free stuff” from advertising companies.
I don’t think it is, but I share your optimism that perhaps people are starting to realise and understand the real cost of “free stuff” from advertising companies.
I used to love Firefox so much before but recently its starting to feel less user friendly than freakin' Chrome the way it shoves changes down my throat. I still cant even stand that huge address bar that goes down to my taskbar, that was one of the major reasons I moved away from firefox just because of how ugly that and the address bar zoom was
i agree that they should revert this to how it was before, but if you want, you can fix it:
https://www.ghacks.net/2020/04/08/how-to-restore-the-old-fir...
https://www.ghacks.net/2020/04/08/how-to-restore-the-old-fir...
I've switched to DDG several years ago and don't miss anything. I still use gmail but only because of inertia. I could switch to some other provider but haven't felt the need yet.
The hardest replacement for me is Maps. Their search and traffic data always work for me. They have a webapp and mobile app that are excellent. I could do without the ads but recognize it's the tradeoff for using their app. Nothing I've tried gets close to a replacement. (I've heard good things about Apple Maps on iOS, but I have an android phone)
The hardest replacement for me is Maps. Their search and traffic data always work for me. They have a webapp and mobile app that are excellent. I could do without the ads but recognize it's the tradeoff for using their app. Nothing I've tried gets close to a replacement. (I've heard good things about Apple Maps on iOS, but I have an android phone)
As someone who's been using DDG for the past three years, I'd love to nudge more people toward it, but when I think of how often I have to prefix my search with !g to find what I'm looking for, I don't think DDG is quite there yet. The only thing keeping me from going back to Google is that I despise it more than I'm annoyed with DDG.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good here.
Using Google some of the time is better that using it all of the time.
DGG has been my default search engine for years now, and like you, I occasionally need to add !g to get the answer I’m looking for. I’m fine with that. I hope DGG uses those failed search followed by a !g search to improve their stuff. (In a privacy preserving way)
Using Google some of the time is better that using it all of the time.
DGG has been my default search engine for years now, and like you, I occasionally need to add !g to get the answer I’m looking for. I’m fine with that. I hope DGG uses those failed search followed by a !g search to improve their stuff. (In a privacy preserving way)
Well, saying "you need to put !g if you think google would find the result better than what bing is showing" isn't easy for everyone to understand and adds a lot of friction. Perfect isn't the enemy of good when there's already a service that most people regard as being perfect (at least for the queries they're giving it).
Technically you don't ever have to prefix with "!g"; you can put it anywhere in the search box. I find DDG gives me what I need >90% of the time, and often when it fails, Google fails too.
I often find I get better results from Google when I'm making purchasing decisions, identifying where I can buy a product locally or for a good price, which disappoints me because that's data I definitely don't want Google to have about me.
Sounds like they've successfully optimized a big profit source.
Wow, thank you! It's such a pita to prefix it, I had no idea you could postfix it and it will work!
>>wean off of Google
That sounds tough.
Too bad google can't just change back to how they were in the beginning. At least just actually hold their old motto above greed and money every now and then.
That sounds tough.
Too bad google can't just change back to how they were in the beginning. At least just actually hold their old motto above greed and money every now and then.
Well, I don't use Chrome or Google search (for most part). Had moved to iOS from Android last year..
I'm finding Gmail to be most difficult to transition off of. I do have personal domain and use Zoho with it, but I think there is this mental block.. It will happen..
I'm finding Gmail to be most difficult to transition off of. I do have personal domain and use Zoho with it, but I think there is this mental block.. It will happen..
I migrated my mails from Gmail to fastmail.com two years ago and never looked back. Imported all my google mail, so I did not loose anything. What I love about fastmail is their pure focus on mailing. It’s a beautiful product with many useful features. For instance you can create as many alias names as you like (although I heard there is a limit, but I haven’t hit that yet). I create an alias for any new website I sign up. I also have aliasses that serve as a base-name (for instance [email protected]) and can be used multiple times like so for instance: [email protected].
Edit:
I am also using my personal domain instead of @fastmail.com You never know when / if you need to leave a service provider again, and you don‘t want to change your email address again.
Edit:
I am also using my personal domain instead of @fastmail.com You never know when / if you need to leave a service provider again, and you don‘t want to change your email address again.
FastMail is also one of the last providers with a push notification certificate for Mail.app, last I checked - which makes it feel right at home on iOS.
I'm sold. If I pay $3/month can I migrate all of my dozen Google accounts? I have an email for each product in my portfolio and switching back and forth.
I would gladly pay a subscription fee if it means Google isn't reading my emails to sell me ads.
I would gladly pay a subscription fee if it means Google isn't reading my emails to sell me ads.
I had four gmail addresses. Imported a ton of emails from these accounts into my fastmail account. The alias feature is something I haven’t seen anywhere else, at least not so polished. Previously I hated signing up with my personal email address on sites I‘d use only once to shop for bicycle parts or whatnot.
can you explain more about the alias feature? what makes it special? Because I think this could be a killer feature as I have that exact same problem when signing up to websites
Very easy: After signup you go to Settings > Users and Aliases. There you see a list of your alias names. And you can create a new one with a click. Underneath the alias name you select which email address to forward to (I manage several email addresses for my family). That‘s it. You can even setup aliasses in a way that you can send messages from them, so they do not serve for receiving emails alone.
Their service is excellent. You get answers from real human beings within 24 hours (unlike trying to get help for Gmail; won‘t work).
Their service is excellent. You get answers from real human beings within 24 hours (unlike trying to get help for Gmail; won‘t work).
damn thats really all I wanted. Just a really easy way to receive, send email from an temporary address that isn't from a free website.
I'm most impressed by people who can quit Google maps. If I'm on the highway driving, or if I have to get somewhere in a hurry or it's an urgent situation, I just cannot trust another platform.
One time my friend was driving and he asked me to navigate. The exit was coming up, meanwhile I'm stuck trying to get OSM+ to understand what rounte we are on. That was an unpleasant few minutes. Despite trying to stick with it, such moments kept coming up again and again. It made me realise that Maps is mission critical to me.
By contrast, Gmail was easy. Fastmail ftw, forward all google mail to it, and the fact that most of my email use is work email, which is on its own domain anyway.
One time my friend was driving and he asked me to navigate. The exit was coming up, meanwhile I'm stuck trying to get OSM+ to understand what rounte we are on. That was an unpleasant few minutes. Despite trying to stick with it, such moments kept coming up again and again. It made me realise that Maps is mission critical to me.
By contrast, Gmail was easy. Fastmail ftw, forward all google mail to it, and the fact that most of my email use is work email, which is on its own domain anyway.
See I find driving to be about as good with Apple Maps and Garmin maps as Google Maps. (And they don’t have ads like Google Maps.) The stickiest point of any Google product for me are the Google Maps reviews. Yelp isn’t really a thing in Canada, so since the death of Urbanspoon, if you want restaurant reviews, Google Maps is it.
I think things might be better across the Atlantic than here in Europe wrt Apple Maps. I can't confirm since I don't have Apple Maps on Android. I agree, though, that the reviews and the opening hours are very useful.
Restaurant reviews are useful... That sounds a lot like Google's recent advertising push...
I wholeheartedly agree. When I had 25+ minutes added to a trip while I needed to use the bathroom because OSMand told me to drive off a bridge, I just gave in :/
I've been a long time fan of Android but I still cannot be forced to swap it for the Apple ecosystem which really is no better than Android.
What I would like is a hardened, privacy focused distro of Android that is guaranteed to be independent from Google. Sounds like a tall order but here's hoping Samsung will come up with their own mobile OS although how unlikely this will be.
What I would like is a hardened, privacy focused distro of Android that is guaranteed to be independent from Google. Sounds like a tall order but here's hoping Samsung will come up with their own mobile OS although how unlikely this will be.
I’ve got a bunch of older Android devices (mainly Samsung s3, S4 and s6s) that run lineageOS. Some of them are completely degoogled, but it makes life really difficult to use them as “regular phones” without access to google play store. Way too many apps most people want to use are not available any other way.
Samsung have not demonstrated being any more user friendly than google in my opinion. My S6Edge ran out of OS updates about 3 years after if was released. I have iPhones several years older that are still getting updated to the latest iOS. And there’s a whole bunch of crap undeletable Samsung software on their devices that I trust even less that Google’s apps.
Samsung have not demonstrated being any more user friendly than google in my opinion. My S6Edge ran out of OS updates about 3 years after if was released. I have iPhones several years older that are still getting updated to the latest iOS. And there’s a whole bunch of crap undeletable Samsung software on their devices that I trust even less that Google’s apps.
I tried this for 2 years. Eventually I ended up with 2 phones - the google store one (with a burner number) and the non google store one. Things like being able to order uber (you used to be able to order on the mobile browser) made life difficult. Eventually I gave up.
Current strategy is to only have a burner google account on the phone and rotate gmail accounts every year (on phone refresh). Keep personal google accounts off the phone (using linux desktop) with a vpn and in firefox with privacy settings.
Use containers on the browser - never mix google, whatsapp facebook and other activities.
Use a phone registered in EU for privacy settings. Use a paid burner gmail account (again I figure it is better for privacy).
Annoyingly I also need an iphone for i-message with family members.
Current strategy is to only have a burner google account on the phone and rotate gmail accounts every year (on phone refresh). Keep personal google accounts off the phone (using linux desktop) with a vpn and in firefox with privacy settings.
Use containers on the browser - never mix google, whatsapp facebook and other activities.
Use a phone registered in EU for privacy settings. Use a paid burner gmail account (again I figure it is better for privacy).
Annoyingly I also need an iphone for i-message with family members.
I would never trust Samsung for this. You'd still end up using a closed OS, just one published by a different company. And in this case the company you're substituting has an appalling privacy record. Vastly worse than Google
I was presently surprised at how easy the transition from Chrome onto Brave was. Multiple profile support with a great import tool. Switched to from GMail to ProtonMail as well.
The only thing I can't figure out is how to get off google calendar.
The only thing I can't figure out is how to get off google calendar.
> I was presently surprised at how easy the transition from Chrome onto Brave was
Mine was the move from Chrome/Firefox back to Opera.
I'm still puzzled what happened to Firefox. I was using the Developer Edition and the last two years the performance is really suspect. I don't have a million tabs open, don't have a ton of add-ons running and it still lags horribly, crashes and new tabs take forever to open
I thought at first it was either my network connection or maybe a system issue. Switched to Opera and was like, "Nah man, it was definitely the browser."
I'm in the same book with my calendar. I have multiple calendars several family members share. I tried using outlook.com calendars and although I prefer their UI, it wouldn't import Google calendars.
If you have any recommendations, I'm all ears. Its the last thing I need to rid myself of Google.
Mine was the move from Chrome/Firefox back to Opera.
I'm still puzzled what happened to Firefox. I was using the Developer Edition and the last two years the performance is really suspect. I don't have a million tabs open, don't have a ton of add-ons running and it still lags horribly, crashes and new tabs take forever to open
I thought at first it was either my network connection or maybe a system issue. Switched to Opera and was like, "Nah man, it was definitely the browser."
I'm in the same book with my calendar. I have multiple calendars several family members share. I tried using outlook.com calendars and although I prefer their UI, it wouldn't import Google calendars.
If you have any recommendations, I'm all ears. Its the last thing I need to rid myself of Google.
Funny enough, as i've been looking to move away from G, i thought calendar element would be easy...but its not. (Well, its not s tough, just not a direct nor free transition.) The default android claendar app doesn't connect to a calendar via, say, nextcloud (calDav if i recall correctly)...One has to actually get/use a different app. I think the one that most folks recommmend for nextcloud is not free. (It is not expensive, so that is not the challenge.) Its fine for me since i am moving away from G apps...but my partner, she is meh-ok with some of their default apps...like the default android calendar app, though she would like to connect that app to our nextcloud cal...Again, nothing major, but just all these little annoyances that exhibit the super tight integration that was built into android with G services. Anyway, yeah calendar is annoying to ween off from G. Yuck!
If you install fDroid via the APK on their site you can install DAVx for free, which is likely the for-pay app you talked about for bringing your calendars in from a CalDAV server. Still not as easy or native as installing a Google Calendar account, but it does work and generally works quite well.
Ok, DAVx must be the name - i see to recall the mobile app having "dav" in its name. Thanks!
Actually I'm quite ok paying for this app...I like to support developers, especially if an app is open source. But, my annoyance is less about paying for an app, and more about google's calendar - which is forced upon an android user - not playing nice with caldav...And forces a person to sidestep things.
I was a really big fan when android first came out, thinking i would have plenty of freedom (or at least a reasonable amount of freedom) of bending my phone's OS - at least when compared to Apple's ios very restrictive approach...Wow, how things have changed! I feel like android is too locked down. Ok, some might think that ios is still more restrictive...But, to me, both ios and android are tech prisons just different colors of paint on the wall. I say that last statement with my fingers crossed and praying for pinePhone and other linux-y type phones to really make it mainstream!
Actually I'm quite ok paying for this app...I like to support developers, especially if an app is open source. But, my annoyance is less about paying for an app, and more about google's calendar - which is forced upon an android user - not playing nice with caldav...And forces a person to sidestep things.
I was a really big fan when android first came out, thinking i would have plenty of freedom (or at least a reasonable amount of freedom) of bending my phone's OS - at least when compared to Apple's ios very restrictive approach...Wow, how things have changed! I feel like android is too locked down. Ok, some might think that ios is still more restrictive...But, to me, both ios and android are tech prisons just different colors of paint on the wall. I say that last statement with my fingers crossed and praying for pinePhone and other linux-y type phones to really make it mainstream!
Wean of google is tough and want to do the same. The most problematic being Gmail. Because although its possible now to migrate emails to new service (e.g. Fastmail), I have many accounts created to sites using that gmail address. I seem to recall seeing a Gmail plugin that helped identify signups.
I migrated to Fastmail a few years ago. I set all my mails to forward from Gmail to Fastmail so I don't miss anything. I slowly changed my logins from gmail to fastmail, no rush.
Just wait till you try getting off amazon during a pandemic...
It’s... not difficult at all? A myriad of grocery chains offer curbside pickup and/or delivery. Walmart delivers, Home Depot, blah blah blah.
What makes it so difficult?
What makes it so difficult?
I tried this locally. The COVID-reduced workforce at the local grocery chains screwed up every order I tried to make, and Walmart is a greater evil in my book than Amazon.
Yep. It was laughably easy. In fairness, I replaced it with shopping.google.com for a bit. It helped, however, that I value minimalism a lot, and I also kept an eye out for where I was buying electronics from, where I was buying household stuff from etc. Slowly I just started going directly to the source.
Good luck doing so and let me know how you did it!
If only Firefox OS has succeeded.
Between Android or iOS, I don't see iOS as being much better. At least I can still side-load applications in Android if it gets banned by the censors.
Between Android or iOS, I don't see iOS as being much better. At least I can still side-load applications in Android if it gets banned by the censors.
I concur. Given current offerings from the Big G, I find it either inconvenient or requiring massive efforts to wean off of them.
Chrome -> Firefox, Safari, Brave -- Done
Google Search -> DDG -- Done
Android -> iOS -- Done
Gmail -> Personal domain email (pending, work started)
TV OS from Android -> Dumb TV (very hard)
YouTube -> ? (limited use, very hard)
Google Classroom (for kids) -> ? (very hard)
Google Maps (noted by helmholtz below ) -> ? (very hard)
...
Google Search -> DDG -- Done
Android -> iOS -- Done
Gmail -> Personal domain email (pending, work started)
TV OS from Android -> Dumb TV (very hard)
YouTube -> ? (limited use, very hard)
Google Classroom (for kids) -> ? (very hard)
Google Maps (noted by helmholtz below ) -> ? (very hard)
...
>Android -> iOS
This is just going out of the frying pan and into the fryer. (I assume you mean stock/Google powered Android here.) Replacing one user-hostile walled garden with another user-hostile walled garden is hardly an improvement.
I'd suggest Google Android -> Open-source Android ROM, though I know it can cause issues with some banking apps, annoyingly.
This is just going out of the frying pan and into the fryer. (I assume you mean stock/Google powered Android here.) Replacing one user-hostile walled garden with another user-hostile walled garden is hardly an improvement.
I'd suggest Google Android -> Open-source Android ROM, though I know it can cause issues with some banking apps, annoyingly.
I'll have to disagree, iOS and Android are far apart.
In end, as I said above, it's about reducing the footprint. Eliminating Google is a very difficult undertaking which I'm not really sure is even possible..
In end, as I said above, it's about reducing the footprint. Eliminating Google is a very difficult undertaking which I'm not really sure is even possible..
I've been happy to switch back to a BlackBerry Q20.
1) I find the use of the BlackBerry hub to really help with decreasing the intermittent reward that having to switch between applications to see your messages gives. 2) It is refreshing to use a device that is more purely focused on its intended purpose. (Communication) 3) I can still sideload most Android APKs if necessary.
1) I find the use of the BlackBerry hub to really help with decreasing the intermittent reward that having to switch between applications to see your messages gives. 2) It is refreshing to use a device that is more purely focused on its intended purpose. (Communication) 3) I can still sideload most Android APKs if necessary.
through the lens of 'user data collection to sell targeted advertising', I'm not sure Apple is even in the same league as Google here.
> YouTube -> ? (limited use, very hard)
Some out of the box thinking is in order here. Duringe the initial lockdown, I signed up to pay for Coursera's courses. I found out that what I craved wasn't shirking from work, but rather distraction. It didn't matter that I had to do some homework for the courses. Since I was _watching_ something, my brain thought of it as the same thing.
But I should note that you haven't addressed the biggest bugbear of mine either, Google maps. It's light-years ahead of everything else, and just does not get replaced easily.
Some out of the box thinking is in order here. Duringe the initial lockdown, I signed up to pay for Coursera's courses. I found out that what I craved wasn't shirking from work, but rather distraction. It didn't matter that I had to do some homework for the courses. Since I was _watching_ something, my brain thought of it as the same thing.
But I should note that you haven't addressed the biggest bugbear of mine either, Google maps. It's light-years ahead of everything else, and just does not get replaced easily.
Regarding Youtube it's a little bit more nuanced unfortunately. I tried blocking Youtube via pi-hole and suddenly a lot of educational course work for kids started throwing a fit since a lot of videos are hosted on Youtube.
So I had to grudgingly unblock it.
Yes, I had missed Google maps. I agree it's indeed light-years ahead of others.
In end it's about reducing Google footprint, elimination is extremely hard.
Yes, I had missed Google maps. I agree it's indeed light-years ahead of others.
In end it's about reducing Google footprint, elimination is extremely hard.
> it's about reducing Google footprint
Indeed. Making peace with this fact has helped me a lot. I don't actually pay Google with anything other than my attention. All of my entertainment is via a uMatrix/uBlockOrigin protected Firefox, so things could be worse.
Indeed. Making peace with this fact has helped me a lot. I don't actually pay Google with anything other than my attention. All of my entertainment is via a uMatrix/uBlockOrigin protected Firefox, so things could be worse.
> Android -> iOS
I prefer Librem 5 or Pinephone instead, not to switch walled gardens.
> YouTube
PeerTube (very hard, but promising)
> Google Maps
https://openstreetmap.org
> ...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17280558
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25380999
I prefer Librem 5 or Pinephone instead, not to switch walled gardens.
> YouTube
PeerTube (very hard, but promising)
> Google Maps
https://openstreetmap.org
> ...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17280558
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25380999
For me it was very easy to stop watching youtube when they started to show more and more commercials - I just couldn’t stand it, it was too frustrating. Occasionally I find something useful, download it using youtube-dl and (re)watch offline.
smart tv > dumb tv
I have a dumb tv from 2006 that we still use and we are happy with but it works because we also use a roku. An old roku.
At some point however not sure how but my roku updated and im pretty sure its monitoring all my stuff (mostly yt)
Ive read about router hacks etc to dumb down the roku and prevent it from calling home but it seems super hard. I was barely able to use my own domain with proton.
Neutering roku seems like mission impossible for a non sysadmin. Is there a simple solution to this with or without roku?
I have a dumb tv from 2006 that we still use and we are happy with but it works because we also use a roku. An old roku.
At some point however not sure how but my roku updated and im pretty sure its monitoring all my stuff (mostly yt)
Ive read about router hacks etc to dumb down the roku and prevent it from calling home but it seems super hard. I was barely able to use my own domain with proton.
Neutering roku seems like mission impossible for a non sysadmin. Is there a simple solution to this with or without roku?
Pi-hole can suck up all of Roku's badness. It's pretty cheap and pretty easy. But it can interfere with some apps, for example Roku's PBS app doesn't work when my Pi-hole is on.
I have a friend working for Roku and once they made a comment that people would be shocked to know what data about customers they have access to.
If you're switching to iPhone and then Apple Maps shouldn't be hard at all, it's actually a pretty decent alternative now.
Just a matter of time until WhatsApp have ads or somehow used to datamine the conversations.
Because it would not make sense otherwise, considering how much it must cost them to run something like WhatsApp with millions of users and not get anything in return.
Because it would not make sense otherwise, considering how much it must cost them to run something like WhatsApp with millions of users and not get anything in return.
Bruh, I wouldn't even mind these companies datamining me if their ads were even close to being relevant for my needs. It would spare me loads of time I waste online looking for that exact product that fits my needs.
I mean, what's the point of all the data they have from me plus the armies of well paid ML engineers they have on their payroll, when if I order a laptop from Amazon, I'll get bombarded with ads for laptops for the next month. Do advertisers imagine I go through laptops like toilet rolls or something? If this is peak ML, then those who fear an AI uprising can sleep soundly.
I mean, what's the point of all the data they have from me plus the armies of well paid ML engineers they have on their payroll, when if I order a laptop from Amazon, I'll get bombarded with ads for laptops for the next month. Do advertisers imagine I go through laptops like toilet rolls or something? If this is peak ML, then those who fear an AI uprising can sleep soundly.
Exactly. Every time I see some new article about how ML is going to mind-control us through perfectly placed ads and Yuval Noah Harari writes a new book about the machines knowing us better than we do I just have to spent five minutes on Amazon or Youtube. I'm not afraid that the machines are too smart but too stupid to be honest.
I'm not convinced that if you went and did an actual scientific study on the efficacy of "big data" teams and ad-targeting and went through every business it would do any better than just regular boring contextual ads.
I'm not convinced that if you went and did an actual scientific study on the efficacy of "big data" teams and ad-targeting and went through every business it would do any better than just regular boring contextual ads.
I spent a lot of energy and time studying applied ML in university. After competing in several contests I realized in most cases a simple linear equation threw shade on the whole carnival. Don't get me wrong there are amazing applications for ML, image recognition, simulated physics, the list goes on. But most of the commercial applications I've seen render a ML model wholly unnecessary. You don't need a heavy handed big data machine learning model to figure out, "people who bought also bought", nor does a crime prediction system need to be more complicated than, "where the cops and poor people were last year". FFS a national convenience store contracted one of our classes to do analysis on 10 years of data and the shocking conclusion most groups arrived at was, "people smoke a lot of cigarettes and drink a lot of beer". A revelation. Maybe if it were required curriculum people would realize you don't need to a hire a warlock to do basic statistics...
At my job, there is a problem that's classically solved with a bunch of regexps and run of the mill text parsing.
The ML experts in my company keep telling me maintaining these regexps is too costly dev wise, and that they can use ML to adapt to changes in the real world, and get a better result faster.
After nearly a year of work, buying some fancy new computers with giant GPUs, and countless meetings to describe the problem space, they have something that's around 60-70% as accurate as the current state of the art, and say they're close to closing the gap.
Meanwhile I add a new regexp or tweak an existing one and cause them to go back to the drawing board because I've "changed the entire problem description".
Sometimes I feel like I want the job where the only criteria is that I'm using the fancy new toys. It seems like more fun.
The ML experts in my company keep telling me maintaining these regexps is too costly dev wise, and that they can use ML to adapt to changes in the real world, and get a better result faster.
After nearly a year of work, buying some fancy new computers with giant GPUs, and countless meetings to describe the problem space, they have something that's around 60-70% as accurate as the current state of the art, and say they're close to closing the gap.
Meanwhile I add a new regexp or tweak an existing one and cause them to go back to the drawing board because I've "changed the entire problem description".
Sometimes I feel like I want the job where the only criteria is that I'm using the fancy new toys. It seems like more fun.
I think its possible the targeting works for the advertisers (at some level) while still failing completely for end users. e.g. If I get my hit-rate up from 1% to 2% by moving from contextual to 'give-me-all-your-data'-targeting, then that doubles my return as an advertiser, while as a user I don't see a difference and still think: "all ads I see are terrible".
The lie is telling users that targeted ads are good for them
The lie is telling users that targeted ads are good for them
"relevant ads" has to be one of the greatest PR/marketing/scam terms ever created. It's a lie to collect data and get small business to spend at least some advertising money even though they never get seen over the big companies competing for the same ad space. There was never an incentive to get actual relevant ads working, development would just be a waste of money.
But if the data isn't even used for the ads... Why do they collect them at all? I thought this was the only reason for businesses to collect data in the first place
It's not used for mass market ads, it's being used for analytics and being sold directly, and also for precision targeting (political attack ads shown only to people in a target constituency considered likely to vote for someone, to discourage them from doing so). Companies pay for "tell me what kind of people are looking at my site, in extreme detail". Scammers pay for "people who use/buy a particular item/service" so they can do targeted scams based on that. Political campaigns pay for targeted attack ads. For mass marketing, that kind of targeting is too expensive and the data is too fuzzy, since you basically want to reach everyone and the selection criteria are limited so you get lots of dumb "would you like to buy the thing you just bought".
I live in Hong Kong, speak a bit of Mandarin, and just a few words of Cantonese.
YouTube knows my UI is in English, and I've never watched a Cantonese video, and yet it constantly shows me ads in Cantonese. There are a lot of people in Hong Kong who don't speak Cantonese, or at least who are more fluent in English than Cantonese.
YouTube knows my UI is in English, and I've never watched a Cantonese video, and yet it constantly shows me ads in Cantonese. There are a lot of people in Hong Kong who don't speak Cantonese, or at least who are more fluent in English than Cantonese.
Same. I speak English and some Canto but little Mandarin. I get mainly adverts for mainland livestreaming services which are borderline pornographic.
When you lost that you lost everything. Whatever you said would be on record to go after you. May be you can trust your national Gov. but the whole world. Would the record be leaked hacked or even required by the police.
Not believe there is totalitarian is the greatest myth one can have in today workd.
Not believe there is totalitarian is the greatest myth one can have in today workd.
Yep, there are some many simple comments you can make in person or via text that can have huge ramifications on your life if it got out. Sometimes we say extreme things just because we're frustrated but taken out of context, it sounds insane. So if you want to be blackmailed in the future if you have any sort of ambitions, play game and give big tech all your data.
"I've got nothing to hide"
"I've got nothing to hide"
Its annoying to get ads for something you bought and wont need to rebuy for many years, its an extra punch in the stomach if the ads show you a lower price than you paid :)
As long as it's opt-IN I have no issue with it.
You are not FB customer. It's not about your needs but the needs of the ad buyers.
I swear there are bots running around on HN just waiting for the opportunity to tell us that we're not the customer. Bot or not, I'll ask: thanks for the insight, how does that tie into parent's point? That advertisers "need" to show you ads for things already purchased? Advertisers are playing the long game, setting up for my next laptop purchase?
I think they're just saying that it doesn't matter if the end user converts based on the ad, but rather whether the company making the ad decides to put it on FB. FB wants to optimize for companies buying ad slots from them, not whether the end user is influenced.
If the company doesn't think FB users convert, why would they buy ads there?
A great mystery as old as the television https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/
Attributing conversions to ads is a really difficult problem. There's probably a decent amount of cluelessness and institutional inertia that keeps them spending on ineffective ads. See the recent stories on Uber drastically reducing ad spend without seeing any downstream effects.
That's the dumb ML practice of those companies, not Facebook. Also even an irrelevant ad probably converts through brand exposure alone. They are forced to fork over to compete for limited exposure.
FB adds told them to. The true end game.
Some are just finding out now that FB ads aren't effective.
I'm sorry for somewhat cynical response, but... Those customers need to believe they're getting value out of it, and it's all that counts for Facebook's business.
They target something like "people interested in computer hardware" and they get them, including those who don't need a laptop. It's bad but must be somewhat better than completely non-targeted ads, as it excludes people who have never expressed any interest (so, while having false positives at least it tries to save on false negatives). And, of course, there is opportunity for Facebook to tell how their superior ad platform is smarter than last year.
The rest (but maybe even more important than actual value advertisers are getting) is advertising of advertising - all those stories how this machine learning agile blockchain big data is our only future. And many people just believe it, and non-ironically talk how Facebook is that omniscient deus ex machina that knows us better than we do ourselves. As this meme lives, those who have a product to advertise are inclined to believe it as well (and this makes them spend money on Facebook Ads).
So, in the end, the fact you're getting ads you're not interested in is less relevant and is kind of shadowed over by the fact advertisers get somewhat better value or maybe even just believe they do.
There are shouts that the king is naked and memes that modern machine learning has two objectives: classifying data and making predictions^W^W^W^W^W bullshitting investors and raising money... but so far, such voices are in minority.
They target something like "people interested in computer hardware" and they get them, including those who don't need a laptop. It's bad but must be somewhat better than completely non-targeted ads, as it excludes people who have never expressed any interest (so, while having false positives at least it tries to save on false negatives). And, of course, there is opportunity for Facebook to tell how their superior ad platform is smarter than last year.
The rest (but maybe even more important than actual value advertisers are getting) is advertising of advertising - all those stories how this machine learning agile blockchain big data is our only future. And many people just believe it, and non-ironically talk how Facebook is that omniscient deus ex machina that knows us better than we do ourselves. As this meme lives, those who have a product to advertise are inclined to believe it as well (and this makes them spend money on Facebook Ads).
So, in the end, the fact you're getting ads you're not interested in is less relevant and is kind of shadowed over by the fact advertisers get somewhat better value or maybe even just believe they do.
There are shouts that the king is naked and memes that modern machine learning has two objectives: classifying data and making predictions^W^W^W^W^W bullshitting investors and raising money... but so far, such voices are in minority.
I don’t know, I live far away from the SV bubble and Facebook has worked well for our local, annual paid event (we advertised exclusively there so attribution was not difficult, in a simple way). 5000 people over 2 days.
Is there another channel that will accept the money of a small business and provide the same results? Even with a compelling event we don’t have the relationships or budget to achieve the same effect through other channels.
Is there another channel that will accept the money of a small business and provide the same results? Even with a compelling event we don’t have the relationships or budget to achieve the same effect through other channels.
You don’t need mountains of user data to geo-target
The advertisers can tell from cookies etc that you are interested in a product and were looking. They cannot always tell that you clicked 'buy' at some point.
This bot can’t even write in proper English grammar. Bad bot.
If Facebook doesn't meet the user's needs, then there are no ad opportunities to sell.
You think Alienware wants to pay for ads to recent Macbook Air purchasers?
I mean, it's not really unheard-of for people to have a Macbook Air as their daily driver plus a gaming PC for enjoying stuff like Cyberpunk or Flight Simulator 2020.
If I had the money I would definitely have both.
If I had the money I would definitely have both.
Days of targeted ads are over, it all about brand now. You will see ads like on TV and radio of old.
Yup, buy a Mac, have issues with it, grumble lots, see an advert for an alternative, send the Mac back and replace it with the shiny.
Maybe the better approach is to sell things around the Mac?
Bought a Mac recently? How about a new case? Or some discounted software or games? Or how about a new mouse?
Bought a house recently? How about some gardening services? Or some home insurance?
Bought a Mac recently? How about a new case? Or some discounted software or games? Or how about a new mouse?
Bought a house recently? How about some gardening services? Or some home insurance?
Bring back the $1/yr charge and keep it private. It'd be a good look. It's really a good product, technically. A pleasure to use and the voice and video quality has been excellent basically everywhere I've used it.
All that said, Signal is making steady progress, and I've had zero resistance getting people to use it. Got 12 people on it this past week. Starting a few group threads helped it stick.
Edit: and signal is down...
All that said, Signal is making steady progress, and I've had zero resistance getting people to use it. Got 12 people on it this past week. Starting a few group threads helped it stick.
Edit: and signal is down...
Is Signal purely funded by donations, or how does it work there?
It's a not for profit foundation, taking foundations. I haven't checked recently, but that was previously their only income source.
What they get in return, and the reason they paid megabucks for it in the first place, is that no other social media entity is able to get control of Whatsapp's 100's of millions of users. That's worth while in itself without being able to monetize it. But...since the founders have now left and no one is watching why not add a little monetization to a good deal? Unfortunately with a reputation like Facebook's one little twitch and the herd will stampede.
> That's worth while in itself without being able to monetize it
Is it though? What's the actual benefit for WhatsApp?
Is it though? What's the actual benefit for WhatsApp?
It's not the only revenue model. You could extract value from it as a platform - wechat style.
I can envisage a pivot to a wechat style monopoly on everyday life interactions. If they can hold on to their market share... And we all sleep walk into it.
They have some revenue, although I don't know how much, selling API access: https://www.whatsapp.com/business/api
I'm not sure, but I believe Whatsapp was profitable prior to its FB acquisition.
They used to charge about $1/yr before acquisition and had over 500mm users. And I think they had fewer than 30 employees.
So they were bringing in about $500mm/yr and their infrastructure costs were unlikely to have been in the 100s of millions.
They used to charge about $1/yr before acquisition and had over 500mm users. And I think they had fewer than 30 employees.
So they were bringing in about $500mm/yr and their infrastructure costs were unlikely to have been in the 100s of millions.
> how much it must cost them to run something like WhatsApp with millions of users
I'd be very curious to know. I don't remember specifics, but they were running a shockingly low number of servers early on in large part because WhatsApp is built on top of Erlang/OTP.
I'd be very curious to know. I don't remember specifics, but they were running a shockingly low number of servers early on in large part because WhatsApp is built on top of Erlang/OTP.
It's not a given that ads or datamining are the only options, they could do in app payments and paid business account. But its not very likely with facebook as parent company...
Whatsapp already supports in app payments and business accounts. In fact the point of the recent privacy policy change was just to enable more features for business uses.
> considering how much it must cost them to run something like WhatsApp
Or justify the costs of buying it. Supposedly the infrastructure and tech-stack is pretty lean.
Or justify the costs of buying it. Supposedly the infrastructure and tech-stack is pretty lean.
They can't datamine conversations because of supposed E2E. It surely would be great to see them do it, although impossible.
With a splash of governmental assistance, I'm sure they can side step the whole encryption issue - for the normal children/terrorist/organised crime reasons
All it takes is to mine them before encryption
They have actually planned to add ads late last year/early this year.
I am thankful they pushed hard because that gave me reason enough to leave Whatsapp, an otherwise wonderful product, but I despised using a product that is associated with Facebook. Left FB and Instagram years ago, only Whatsapp was left.
Edit: Bought a piece of software [1] that perfectly exported five years of messages out of my cellphone, then I didn’t hesitate one day to delete my WhatsApp accout. I felt an incredible relief abandoning the last service I used from Facebook.
[1]: „Backuptrans iPhone WhatsApp Transfer for Mac“
Edit: Bought a piece of software [1] that perfectly exported five years of messages out of my cellphone, then I didn’t hesitate one day to delete my WhatsApp accout. I felt an incredible relief abandoning the last service I used from Facebook.
[1]: „Backuptrans iPhone WhatsApp Transfer for Mac“
I have reluctantly been using Whatsapp to contact non-technical friends. In the past week, all of them have adopted Signal and/or Telegram, and I've deleted my Whatsapp account.
It doesn't matter what they say now; Whatsapp needs to be crushed pour encourager les autres.
It doesn't matter what they say now; Whatsapp needs to be crushed pour encourager les autres.
I mean, it's not that wonderful. Like, I don't understand what was the point of Statuses. Never used it. Much prefer the cleanliness of Signal.
The most wonderful thing about WhatsApp was that everyone you knew was there.
The most wonderful thing about WhatsApp was that everyone you knew was there.
It's historical. IIRC WhatsApp started out as an app for people to post those statuses as they travel, to let know their family and friends their whereabouts. To that effect, the founder of Whatsapp was first talking about it in online frequent flyer forums such as FlyerTalk that he was already a member of. Chat came later.
Quick Google search would suggest that the current status feature was only added in 2017.
rolleiflex is referring to the text status along with profile picture. The other new Status feature was added in 2017 when Facebook went crazy adding Snapchat Story like features to all their apps (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp)
Me too. I am just waiting for my family members to switch, then I can be off FB once and for all..
I am actively evangelising my family members to start using alternatives.
> I am actively evangelising my family members to start using alternatives.
Which specifically? I've finally succeeded in showing them the light regarding Signal.
The only usable alternatives that come to mind is Gab for Twitter (or Mastodon but that'd be a stretch for most of them). With respect to Facebook and Instagram, I don't see a clear path to a seamless switch as with Whatsapp and Signal.
Which specifically? I've finally succeeded in showing them the light regarding Signal.
The only usable alternatives that come to mind is Gab for Twitter (or Mastodon but that'd be a stretch for most of them). With respect to Facebook and Instagram, I don't see a clear path to a seamless switch as with Whatsapp and Signal.
Telegram and Signal.
Some execs realized they weren't gonna get their bonuses anymore and, since they started bleeding users, went in full damage control mode to save their own asses.
Hmm, I hate this concept of "bonuses" because in my experience this isn't really how things work.
However, I do think the incentives internally probably were structured in a way to encourage this change, and I doubt anyone is being seen as being "more successful" due to a rollback.
However, I do think the incentives internally probably were structured in a way to encourage this change, and I doubt anyone is being seen as being "more successful" due to a rollback.
> Hmm, I hate this concept of "bonuses" because in my experience this isn't really how things work.
You're right. They're going to pay themselves the bonus regardless of this debacle.
You're right. They're going to pay themselves the bonus regardless of this debacle.
Please explain to me the process by which executives decide their own bonus.
There are directors/executives that sit on compensation committees that also wind up deciding their own pay. And if you decide your own pay it isn't much of a leap to also decide bonus amounts and criteria.
Here's an article from Harvard Law Review about a lawsuit over this - you might be interested in the paragraphs in the "Shareholder Waivers" section: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/09/18/setting-directors...
Some quotes: waive a shareholder’s right to sue the directors for violating their duty of loyalty regarding setting their own pay and For directors setting their own pay, the ruling suggested that a blanket waiver etc.
Here's an article from Harvard Law Review about a lawsuit over this - you might be interested in the paragraphs in the "Shareholder Waivers" section: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/09/18/setting-directors...
Some quotes: waive a shareholder’s right to sue the directors for violating their duty of loyalty regarding setting their own pay and For directors setting their own pay, the ruling suggested that a blanket waiver etc.
You put that much more eloquently than I did.
[deleted]
Consolidating, strategical changes like these sure are introduced and orchestrated by the top, not by the lower/mid level management who want to be noticed.
I know this is going to get a lot of hate here, but sometimes I wonder whether these execs consider anything besides their fat bonuses or anything which is not related to their bonuses?
I think it’s probably already a fuck-up of bonus limiting proportions.
The communication around this change was very poorly handled. This policy update does not affect the privacy of messages with friends or family in any way: https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/answer.... I don't believe that was well understood.
Disclosure: I work at FB but unrelated to WhatsApp
Disclosure: I work at FB but unrelated to WhatsApp
You know, I don't care about the changes to the privacy policy at all. I tried to move to an alternative messenger for years but I was never able to convince enough people. Now that there's enough momentum I tried again and every person I care about was willing to move. Let's see if we can use the network effect for our own good for once.
[deleted]
We've been down this path before.
We were told nothing would change.
Oh wait, the time of last login will be shared with facebook family of companies? Despite this blog post showing no sharing icons at all - they ARE sharing and now lying about it by not showing a single icon to reflect this sharing.
Oh wait, we need your phone number for 2FA? Sure. Bam - now you've given us permission to spam you! They lied about that.
Check out signal and get away from the lies. This blog post is such a good example of it, all the things not showing as not shared are probably SHARED! So despite EVERY icon saying nothing is shared, they no doubt are pumping your phone number over to Facebook family of companies.
They are trying to do the fake apple privacy label thing - but only including non-sharing labels, not the sharing labels.
Totally disgusting. I'm signing up to signal today and pushing hard for my network to switch.
Now if only signal used go or something lighter weight instead of a monster java stack they could probably scale a lot better.
We were told nothing would change.
Oh wait, the time of last login will be shared with facebook family of companies? Despite this blog post showing no sharing icons at all - they ARE sharing and now lying about it by not showing a single icon to reflect this sharing.
Oh wait, we need your phone number for 2FA? Sure. Bam - now you've given us permission to spam you! They lied about that.
Check out signal and get away from the lies. This blog post is such a good example of it, all the things not showing as not shared are probably SHARED! So despite EVERY icon saying nothing is shared, they no doubt are pumping your phone number over to Facebook family of companies.
They are trying to do the fake apple privacy label thing - but only including non-sharing labels, not the sharing labels.
Totally disgusting. I'm signing up to signal today and pushing hard for my network to switch.
Now if only signal used go or something lighter weight instead of a monster java stack they could probably scale a lot better.
Facebook guy tells us that the changes are harmless and that there is nothing to worry about. Nothing to see here I guess.
Amazing what some internal koolaid can do to you (well more than this,it's really probably greed). Please rethink critically the ethics of your employer.
Amazing what some internal koolaid can do to you (well more than this,it's really probably greed). Please rethink critically the ethics of your employer.
+1
A Facebook employee making claims about privacy or ethics makes me immediately suspicious of those claims.
A Facebook employee making claims about privacy or ethics makes me immediately suspicious of those claims.
It seemed to imply that from Feb, metadata would now be shared with Facebook (I know, probably was anyway), and a lot of people took a dim view of that. (esp. those that paid for it originally)
I think a lot of horses have bolted, but I'm sure there will be plently left once the gate is shut.
I think a lot of horses have bolted, but I'm sure there will be plently left once the gate is shut.
From the link you supplied: "WhatsApp does not share your contacts with Facebook"
Wouldn't it be better to just say: "WhatsApp does not share your contacts." or even better "WhatsApp doesn't store any of your contacts especially the ones who doesn't even use WhatsApp"?
Wouldn't it be better to just say: "WhatsApp does not share your contacts." or even better "WhatsApp doesn't store any of your contacts especially the ones who doesn't even use WhatsApp"?
Too late. When there is a mandatory requirement to share data with Facebook that is a hard no regardless of the details. I'd be happy to pay or get ads within reason, but to monetize my privacy, no way.
My user experience on Signal has been excellent so far, family switched without difficulty.
My user experience on Signal has been excellent so far, family switched without difficulty.
To me that was never the problem. The problem is joining data that doesn't need to be joined.
[deleted]
So your rational is: since Facebook was already mining your conversation metadata, people shouldn't be leaving. Did I capture that accurately? Seems pretty flimsy. You're right though, people should have left a long time ago.
That is not what he said.
Pedantry aside, isn't it? In a thread about the backlash to whatsapp changes, Op said "it's not what you think it is!!!"
The point is, this happened to be a watershed moment. Whether the conditions (mining metadata) were met years ago or in a week or two from now is irrelevant.
The point is, this happened to be a watershed moment. Whether the conditions (mining metadata) were met years ago or in a week or two from now is irrelevant.
How can you still work at Facebook with a clear conscience?
I don't think the backlash was just about the privacy changes. I think the changes were just the straw that broke the camel's back. People have been itching for a catalyst to get their friends and family to migrate away from Facebook's manipulative software to an app that actually respects users and their privacy. It seems like it finally happened. Finally most of the friends I chat with have Signal or Telegram and I can justify deleting WhatsApp and Facebook. I'm hanging on by a thin thread to Instagram because it's the easiest way for me to quickly edit and post my daily photos, but that could very easily be replaced because now it's more about the image editing than the network effects.
"This means we will always protect your personal conversations with end-to-end encryption"
/ https://blog.whatsapp.com/giving-more-time-for-our-recent-up... /
Why is "personal" present in that sentence?
EDIT
Finally, here's the real reason for the changes:
> "While not everyone shops with a business on WhatsApp today, we think that more people will choose to do so in the future and it’s important people are aware of these services."
My wife recently started to complain about the new instagram UI and that there are shops _everywhere_, and that the UI has reorganised buttons so people will find themselves at shops if they follow muscle memory.
Apparently that's the future of WhatsApp.
Why is "personal" present in that sentence?
EDIT
Finally, here's the real reason for the changes:
> "While not everyone shops with a business on WhatsApp today, we think that more people will choose to do so in the future and it’s important people are aware of these services."
My wife recently started to complain about the new instagram UI and that there are shops _everywhere_, and that the UI has reorganised buttons so people will find themselves at shops if they follow muscle memory.
Apparently that's the future of WhatsApp.
Specifically to distinguish it from "business" conversations. A lot of my peer group missed that distinction in the whatsapp policy update.
Is a group conversation personal? Who decides what is personal?
Business conversations are conversations between you and Whatsapp Business accounts. Everything else would be personal.
Okay but my pharmacist has a WhatsApp business account you can communicate on. I would not call such a conversation non-personal, instead it is super personal. But based on what Facebook is saying this wouldn't fall under the "personal" category, and that is worrying.
> Everything else would be personal
Is that written down anywhere?
Is that written down anywhere?
Not specifically. I assumed the distinction from the two below.
"We offer end-to-end encryption for our Services. End-to-end encryption means that your messages are encrypted to protect against us and third parties from reading them. Learn more about end-to-end encryption and how businesses communicate with you on WhatsApp."
And the following link https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/end-to...
And the following link https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/end-to...
While they're "clearing up misinformation", we probably also need to "clear up misinformation" - because according to [1] the actual problematic changes happened a while ago, you could opt out, but anyone who created their account afterwards (or didn't opt out back them) can't.
While back then, there was not enough outcry and momentum to switch people over to Signal, now, with Facebook being seen more negatively even by laypeople, there seems to be enough momentum and I've gotten most people switched over. Hopefully, this will make it easier for their friends to switch too. So if you were unable to switch a few years ago, try again! People may be easier to convince than you thought.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-facebook-data-share-not...
While back then, there was not enough outcry and momentum to switch people over to Signal, now, with Facebook being seen more negatively even by laypeople, there seems to be enough momentum and I've gotten most people switched over. Hopefully, this will make it easier for their friends to switch too. So if you were unable to switch a few years ago, try again! People may be easier to convince than you thought.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-facebook-data-share-not...
Really weird tone in their blog post [1].
It's mostly "sorry that you don't understand how things work". I've seen this before with these privacy-invading megacorps. They're tone deaf and defensive. Maybe they're worried that people are catching on and the tides are shifting.
[1] https://blog.whatsapp.com/giving-more-time-for-our-recent-up...
It's mostly "sorry that you don't understand how things work". I've seen this before with these privacy-invading megacorps. They're tone deaf and defensive. Maybe they're worried that people are catching on and the tides are shifting.
[1] https://blog.whatsapp.com/giving-more-time-for-our-recent-up...
I dunno, I've personally heard from friends who thought that WhatsApp was turning off encryption. Tons of people have misunderstood what the policy change meant. I agree that it's partly self-serving to focus on those people (as opposed to the people who did understand the policy and still felt angry about it), but it's not unreasonable.
Agreed, I had to explain to my friends (some even lawyers, who felt very strongly about this) what this change actually entailed regarding message encryption.
Care to share your explanation. What does it mean? Genuinely curious.
It's true though? The actualy privacy policy changes were just about enabling business messaging and didn't functionally change anything wrt what user data is collected or shared with Facebook.
Wasn't this just the case in the EU? My understanding is in the US they did explicitly have another section about data sharing in the US giving a three point update compared to the two point update we got.
The third bullet point was that the updates includes changes to "How we partner with Facebook to offer integrations across the Facebook Company Products".
The new privacy policy just reformatted how data is shared with facebook from the "Affiliated Companies" section to a new section "How We Work With Other Facebook Companies", but the only real change is, like the bullet point says, an added sentence about how data might be shared to integrate whatsapp into other facebook products, and it's clearly "integrate" in the functional sense.
Similar to facebook messenger recently adding instagram messaging, they're probably planning to add whastapp messenging too. I imagine this change isn't in the EU privacy policy just because just like the integram change, more product integration there is held up by antitrust action.
Notably, facebook using whatsapp data for ad targeting has been allowed by the privacy policy since 2016
The new privacy policy just reformatted how data is shared with facebook from the "Affiliated Companies" section to a new section "How We Work With Other Facebook Companies", but the only real change is, like the bullet point says, an added sentence about how data might be shared to integrate whatsapp into other facebook products, and it's clearly "integrate" in the functional sense.
Similar to facebook messenger recently adding instagram messaging, they're probably planning to add whastapp messenging too. I imagine this change isn't in the EU privacy policy just because just like the integram change, more product integration there is held up by antitrust action.
Notably, facebook using whatsapp data for ad targeting has been allowed by the privacy policy since 2016
Talking about tone deaf...that blog granted with a cookie popup, regardless of firefox tracking protection, a plethora ublock plugins, AND the "I don't care about cookies" FF plugin (I have Forget Me Not in the background)
You say “tone deaf”.
I say “manipulative and evil”.
I say “manipulative and evil”.
The customer/product is always wrong!
I have wanted to leave Whatsapp for years, but I can't realistically do it since most people assume it's your messaging app of choice here (including coworkers / bosses).
I would actually prefer it these changes weren't delayed since it will also delay the eventual user exodus to Signal / Telegram.
I would actually prefer it these changes weren't delayed since it will also delay the eventual user exodus to Signal / Telegram.
"I'm sorry, I don't have WhatsApp. I am available via Signal, Email, and failing both of those, also available via text messages."
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Nope.
Everything happens in WhatsApp here. Just moved to a new building and they added me to a whatsapp group for announcements / requests etc. Also, movers, utility people etc would call and ask for a “location”. Not an address. A “location”, meaning sharing a location via whatsapp. Noone even mentions the name whatsapp. It is implied.
If you have children, most schools have whatsapp groups for parents and teachers to get in contact.
I mean I can find much more. Not having WhatsApp is not an option here. It is almost like not having a cell phone.
Everything happens in WhatsApp here. Just moved to a new building and they added me to a whatsapp group for announcements / requests etc. Also, movers, utility people etc would call and ask for a “location”. Not an address. A “location”, meaning sharing a location via whatsapp. Noone even mentions the name whatsapp. It is implied.
If you have children, most schools have whatsapp groups for parents and teachers to get in contact.
I mean I can find much more. Not having WhatsApp is not an option here. It is almost like not having a cell phone.
I live in the subcontinent and 100% agree with you, I don't know most westerners are able to comprehend how much Whatsapp is tied into our day to day lives. It also plays a huge huge hand in spreading fake news here through message forwards, most politicians here pay off journalists who maintain several large group chats where they spread misinformation (exponentially)
An important thing to ask yourself is "Why are you commenting?" This isn't a dig but a real question. I don't mean to belittle you or the GP. Is it just idle ranting or are you hoping to find a solution?
If the former, my complete sympathies. Carrying around this low-level resentment about an app all while having to use it isn't great.
But if it's the latter, then the solution is obvious. Delete the app and then let the chips fall where they may. I guarantee there is a grumpy 60 year old in your life who just never ditched his Nokia and "it works for him". It's clear that you can't have it both ways.
I make this comment because too often on the internet people will comment on a self-help article, or someone sharing their success story, or a piece of advice with "Yeah, but it doesn't work for me because..."
Well, great? Sorry to hear that? This topic, then, is not for you? Carry on and good luck? It's just too many people expect universal solutions that MUST work EVERYWHERE without exceptions.
If the former, my complete sympathies. Carrying around this low-level resentment about an app all while having to use it isn't great.
But if it's the latter, then the solution is obvious. Delete the app and then let the chips fall where they may. I guarantee there is a grumpy 60 year old in your life who just never ditched his Nokia and "it works for him". It's clear that you can't have it both ways.
I make this comment because too often on the internet people will comment on a self-help article, or someone sharing their success story, or a piece of advice with "Yeah, but it doesn't work for me because..."
Well, great? Sorry to hear that? This topic, then, is not for you? Carry on and good luck? It's just too many people expect universal solutions that MUST work EVERYWHERE without exceptions.
Let's turn this around: why are you commenting?
Your message seems to boil down to asking people to "get on board or get left behind", and that otherwise they just should delete the app, shut up, and stop complaining.
That may be possible for you, but it isn't for every person, even if they wished it was. "Just don't use it" isn't enough, and I say this as someone who hasn't had Facebook or WhatsApp in over 5 years. That I can go without them is a luxury many don't have.
Lastly, people being outspoken about technology not working for them has led to countless improvements and innovations, often with benefits to the entire population (<curb-cuts-cliche/>). Telling people not to express their criticism and complaints helps nobody.
Your message seems to boil down to asking people to "get on board or get left behind", and that otherwise they just should delete the app, shut up, and stop complaining.
That may be possible for you, but it isn't for every person, even if they wished it was. "Just don't use it" isn't enough, and I say this as someone who hasn't had Facebook or WhatsApp in over 5 years. That I can go without them is a luxury many don't have.
Lastly, people being outspoken about technology not working for them has led to countless improvements and innovations, often with benefits to the entire population (<curb-cuts-cliche/>). Telling people not to express their criticism and complaints helps nobody.
I thought I was making a wider point about the sort of comment where people dive headfirst into a comment thread with complaints about how the solution doesn't work for them because of XYZ, when the author may never have inteded their solution to be universal in the first place.
I have serious doubts that idle complaining on the internet moves the needle too much. What works instead is voting with feet/dollars. In this instance, it's the mass of people who actually HAVE jumped ship that are causing whatsapp to pause, not the ones saying they can't quit, however justified their reasoning.
I have serious doubts that idle complaining on the internet moves the needle too much. What works instead is voting with feet/dollars. In this instance, it's the mass of people who actually HAVE jumped ship that are causing whatsapp to pause, not the ones saying they can't quit, however justified their reasoning.
> What works instead is voting with feet/dollars.
So I both agree and disagree. On one hand, yes, one person voting with feet/dollars has a relatively large impact compared to one person raising a complaint. But if we look at the entire ecology of users, the story is different.
Many of the people who end up voting with their feet do so after being exposed to people raising complaints. And on the flip side, people who see their friends voting with their feet may then seek out the explanations and complaints leading to that action.
Just uninstalling an app is very low information density as a signal. It doesn't provide any reason why, it's just a single bit. It's value is more as an action rather than a statement.
I think the ideal is somewhere in between, and we need both concrete action (voting with your feet) as well as public discourse (raising complaints). The former without the latter is inscrutable, the latter without the former is toothless.
So I both agree and disagree. On one hand, yes, one person voting with feet/dollars has a relatively large impact compared to one person raising a complaint. But if we look at the entire ecology of users, the story is different.
Many of the people who end up voting with their feet do so after being exposed to people raising complaints. And on the flip side, people who see their friends voting with their feet may then seek out the explanations and complaints leading to that action.
Just uninstalling an app is very low information density as a signal. It doesn't provide any reason why, it's just a single bit. It's value is more as an action rather than a statement.
I think the ideal is somewhere in between, and we need both concrete action (voting with your feet) as well as public discourse (raising complaints). The former without the latter is inscrutable, the latter without the former is toothless.
It's clear from previous discussions on this topic that a lot of people on HN do genuinely believe that it is possible for anyone to stop using WhatsApp without suffering any social disadvantages whatsoever.
Maybe you are a person that isn't bothered in the slightest when other people have built their opinions based on a faulty understanding of the situation. I wish I was, it must be very peaceful.
Maybe you are a person that isn't bothered in the slightest when other people have built their opinions based on a faulty understanding of the situation. I wish I was, it must be very peaceful.
Yes, very peaceful. By the same token, it must be deeply burdensome having your own equanimity displaced because "other people have built their opinions based on a faulty understanding of the situation". Quelle horreur!
Previously the only way I've had of keeping in touch with family back home was Facebook, in addition, most of my university life (late 00s/early 10s) was done through Facebook. I got rid of Facebook for a couple years, and nothing fell apart. People were still able to stay in touch with me (through WhatsApp, email and text messages), and maybe I didn't go to as many parties as before, but I still went to more than enough.
Later on, I signed up to Facebook again (for all the wrong reasons), and not much changed in that communication was mostly off Facebook because that's what my acquaintances and I had established.
I got rid of Facebook again not long after. Then a few years ago I moved into a new property where, just like you, the first thing they asked me is if I had Facebook so I can be added to building's group. I politely told them I do not, and what do you know, the landlord was still able to keep us up to date with announcements and everything else.
I'm sure my situations isn't the same as yours, and I do believe that you're in a worse situation than I was in that sense. Certainly, I don't disagree that it's hard to leave a service when everyone else is on it.
However, something has to give.
Your utility provider will find a way to tell you that you owe them money. The movers will find a way to talk to you to get his business. When they ask for a location, and you send the address instead anyway, they'll copy and paste it.
Maybe I have an oversimplified view of the world, because quite frankly, here in the UK, there is a lot of convenience and professionalism.
Regardless, I've messed up a lot when it comes to privacy in the past, and I'd rather not continue those same mistakes. I've come to learn to value my privacy, and I encourage everyone around me to value theirs, so I lead by example. I implore you to do the same, because your privacy is important. It'll be hard, but it'll be worth it.
Later on, I signed up to Facebook again (for all the wrong reasons), and not much changed in that communication was mostly off Facebook because that's what my acquaintances and I had established.
I got rid of Facebook again not long after. Then a few years ago I moved into a new property where, just like you, the first thing they asked me is if I had Facebook so I can be added to building's group. I politely told them I do not, and what do you know, the landlord was still able to keep us up to date with announcements and everything else.
I'm sure my situations isn't the same as yours, and I do believe that you're in a worse situation than I was in that sense. Certainly, I don't disagree that it's hard to leave a service when everyone else is on it.
However, something has to give.
Your utility provider will find a way to tell you that you owe them money. The movers will find a way to talk to you to get his business. When they ask for a location, and you send the address instead anyway, they'll copy and paste it.
Maybe I have an oversimplified view of the world, because quite frankly, here in the UK, there is a lot of convenience and professionalism.
Regardless, I've messed up a lot when it comes to privacy in the past, and I'd rather not continue those same mistakes. I've come to learn to value my privacy, and I encourage everyone around me to value theirs, so I lead by example. I implore you to do the same, because your privacy is important. It'll be hard, but it'll be worth it.
Where is here?
[deleted]
It doesn't work like that.
For instance I am part of a volunteer organisation, that amongst other things runs some Covid-19 vaccination centers. At a local level this is organised through a WhatsApp group with about 50 members. For now, I am nothing special in this organisation, no-one with special skills that would be called upon to do particular tasks, just a worker drone.
If I left the WhatsApp group, the only result is that I would never hear about anything that was going on ever again. I would effectively be leaving the organisation too.
For instance I am part of a volunteer organisation, that amongst other things runs some Covid-19 vaccination centers. At a local level this is organised through a WhatsApp group with about 50 members. For now, I am nothing special in this organisation, no-one with special skills that would be called upon to do particular tasks, just a worker drone.
If I left the WhatsApp group, the only result is that I would never hear about anything that was going on ever again. I would effectively be leaving the organisation too.
This is exactly what I did.
Just leave. If your coworkers and bosses want to text you, they'll do it via Signal.
This is just not realistic, and not how the world works. "Oh, you expect me to be available on the app we used to communicate regularly and most people in our circle use? Too bad, I just dumped it and got on this new app, so you guys better install it just to have the privilege to communicate with me."
Umm, no. I use both WhatsApp and Signal (way before this hysteria began) but the "just leave" mentality isn't realistic. Most people don't care about this stuff enough to install a new app and start using it. Even for people who will join it, it takes time. The network effect is still there.
Being on HN too much and/or having social circles full of people who think like you misleads people.
Umm, no. I use both WhatsApp and Signal (way before this hysteria began) but the "just leave" mentality isn't realistic. Most people don't care about this stuff enough to install a new app and start using it. Even for people who will join it, it takes time. The network effect is still there.
Being on HN too much and/or having social circles full of people who think like you misleads people.
> but the "just leave" mentality isn't realistic
Oh, but it is. You just need to accept a drop in your social circle.
Oh, but it is. You just need to accept a drop in your social circle.
None of the people I had on WhatsApp think like me. They're mostly just my family and relatives. But I told them "I'm quitting WhatsApp, if you need to message me, use Signal". And they all just downloaded Signal because it's honestly not that big of a deal. It's just another free chat app.
"It's not how the world works". Of course it is. Most people downloaded WhatsApp because someone told them to so they could message each other.
"It's not how the world works". Of course it is. Most people downloaded WhatsApp because someone told them to so they could message each other.
It isn't how the world works. For change there needs to a value proposition. Your entire proposition is it fits your personal views. Why do you expect others to change for your personal choices when you aren't willing to change for theirs?
You essentially have a personal disagreement with the practices of a specific company and want to inconvenience others who might not think the same way. It's arguably a selfish perspective, family members may be willing to bend to those demands for an individual. But to expect businesses to indulge every single individual preferences for how they wish to be contacted is impractical.
You essentially have a personal disagreement with the practices of a specific company and want to inconvenience others who might not think the same way. It's arguably a selfish perspective, family members may be willing to bend to those demands for an individual. But to expect businesses to indulge every single individual preferences for how they wish to be contacted is impractical.
i actually think this time is different. I've never seen that much non-tech friend leave whatsapp and appear on signal at the same time.
Saying "i'm on signal" could be totally considered normal in just a few weeks from now.
Saying "i'm on signal" could be totally considered normal in just a few weeks from now.
[deleted]
Now, it's not concrete evidence, but I find it truly curious that Telegram has been banned in many authoritarian countries, but WhatsApp wasn't.
It does suggest the authorities do have access to WhatsApp chats in some manner, at least.
Durov has publicly stated that the FBI offered bribes multiple times to insert a backdoor into Telegram.
It does suggest the authorities do have access to WhatsApp chats in some manner, at least.
Durov has publicly stated that the FBI offered bribes multiple times to insert a backdoor into Telegram.
Whatsapp has been banned in China for a few years now unless roaming on a foreign sim card or connected to a vpn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...
I'm not then, but if I were them, I would do the opposite. I will immediately do the next shady step (whatever it is ) that Zuck always wanted to do. Because yeah, there is a lot of bad press around the privacy changes. But you better get all the backlash at the same time, than several time a backlash.
And that would be so good because I could be convinced to really uninstall whatsaap
And that would be so good because I could be convinced to really uninstall whatsaap
If I was them, I would do exactly what they're doing.
A partial exodus doesn't work. With this delay, maybe half of the people who were going to switch won't end up switching.
By boiling the frog slowly, they make sure that a mass exodus never happens, only partial exoduses that end up dying and tiring people out.
A partial exodus doesn't work. With this delay, maybe half of the people who were going to switch won't end up switching.
By boiling the frog slowly, they make sure that a mass exodus never happens, only partial exoduses that end up dying and tiring people out.
That, and do it now now now. The backlash is already semi-drowned with the whole world looking at the sociopolitical issues in the US. A perfect crisis that no self-respecting evil megacorp would let go to waste.
> But you better get all the backlash at the same time, than several time a backlash.
I'm not sure. Bad publicity has a critical point after which people leave and move to other services. When people who weren't concerned about privacy before began to have conversations about whether Telegram or Signal is a better replacement to WhatsApp, Facebook realized that they have pushed it too far this time. They're much better served if people think "Oh WhatsApp is owned by a shady company but everyone I know uses it so I need to use it to".
I'm not sure. Bad publicity has a critical point after which people leave and move to other services. When people who weren't concerned about privacy before began to have conversations about whether Telegram or Signal is a better replacement to WhatsApp, Facebook realized that they have pushed it too far this time. They're much better served if people think "Oh WhatsApp is owned by a shady company but everyone I know uses it so I need to use it to".
> And that would be so good because I could be convinced to really uninstall whatsaap
Did you just provide the counterargument to your own argument?
If they backpaddled is likely because there was enough of a negative reaction to raise concern.
I believe it's more likely they are trying to figure out how to announce the next deadline more quietly without breaking too many laws.
Did you just provide the counterargument to your own argument?
If they backpaddled is likely because there was enough of a negative reaction to raise concern.
I believe it's more likely they are trying to figure out how to announce the next deadline more quietly without breaking too many laws.
No, because I dont think I act like most people. Most people don't even understand the privacy changes, they just see that 'something' happened on Whatsaap this week
A lot of people are migrating to Signal. I'm wondering what Signal's monetization model is, as they certainly won't be able to maintain the level of usage forever as a free app.
If we each give $10 dollar per year it will take care of their finances, Wikipedia runs and scales based on donations as well.
It's a non profit. It runs on donations. There is no "monetization model"
Donations are a monetization model.
Servers and infrastructure cost money. People's time costs money. You need enough donations for it. If you don't, you have to strategize to get more.
Servers and infrastructure cost money. People's time costs money. You need enough donations for it. If you don't, you have to strategize to get more.
Brian action established the signal foundation with an initial $50mm grant.
* $50MM loan
The key distinction being that loan will need to be repaid.
> The initial $50M in funding was a loan, not a donation, from Brian Acton to the new nonprofit Signal Technology Foundation. By the end of 2018, the loan had increased to $105,000,400, which is due to be repaid on February 28, 2068. The loan is unsecured and at 0% interest.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation
The key distinction being that loan will need to be repaid.
> The initial $50M in funding was a loan, not a donation, from Brian Acton to the new nonprofit Signal Technology Foundation. By the end of 2018, the loan had increased to $105,000,400, which is due to be repaid on February 28, 2068. The loan is unsecured and at 0% interest.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation
It's probably some tax dodge or something.
Donations, or an interest free $100 million 50 year loan from the founder of WhatsApp.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I dunno, but this time I managed to flip 3 of my most active chat groups to Signal. I’m not letting this one go to waste... it’s the chance of a lifetime.
During last week at least dozen more of my contacts appeared on my Signal roaster. And those were not security or privacy oriented people.
Still in many countries Whatsapp is basically way of communicating with customers or just communicating (it's more cost effective iirc than SMS) - so these people are not going anywhere I presume.
And Zuckerberg supposedly played around with the idea of running for president.
Huh? It seems pretty obvious that he does not have the necessary charisma.
He did a tour of America to "meet folks" and did internal polling regarding how he was received (poorly, which tempered expectations) but wouldn't be surprising if he still harbors ambitions in that realm.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/new-data...
I felt like he was doing a lot of personal PR and a presidential run felt like it was in the works for 2020, but Facebook soured pretty quickly well before that could be realized.
I don't think he would have done particularly well either, due to lack of charisma.
Highlights from his hourlong livestream to show how relatable and definitely a human he is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVyLlFezj2E
I don't think he would have done particularly well either, due to lack of charisma.
Highlights from his hourlong livestream to show how relatable and definitely a human he is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVyLlFezj2E
He has about the right level of empathy.
I thought you were going to say the "necessary data" lol
that's some technical pov, lol
LOL
Yeah, I remember a lot of people mocking him during all of the hearings for his robot-like demeanour. Like this: https://twitter.com/bananaben420/status/1288564841742041089
I really can't imagine him giving a speech on a stage with cheering crowds.
I really can't imagine him giving a speech on a stage with cheering crowds.
Except to himself apparently.
Facebook can manufacture the charisma on his behalf, though.
Zuckerberg made incredible effort without announcing.
* He restructured of Facebook stock trough the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative so that he can run for a office and maintain control (also for tax and other reasons).
* He started with "I'm no longer an atheist", now believes religion to be “very important.”
* Hired Obama's campaign manager (David Plouffe)
* Hired former GWB campaign manager and RNC chariman (Ken Mehlman)
* visited 50 states "to meet people".
* hired more even more political strategists who worked for Obama's and Hillary's campaign. He had something like 150 people working just for his PR according to some sources.
No amount of turd polishing with unlimited money and PR talent was able to make people to like him. Trump is horrible but at least he raises emotions in people.
* He restructured of Facebook stock trough the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative so that he can run for a office and maintain control (also for tax and other reasons).
* He started with "I'm no longer an atheist", now believes religion to be “very important.”
* Hired Obama's campaign manager (David Plouffe)
* Hired former GWB campaign manager and RNC chariman (Ken Mehlman)
* visited 50 states "to meet people".
* hired more even more political strategists who worked for Obama's and Hillary's campaign. He had something like 150 people working just for his PR according to some sources.
No amount of turd polishing with unlimited money and PR talent was able to make people to like him. Trump is horrible but at least he raises emotions in people.
> He had something like 150 people working just for his PR according to some sources.
I wonder what the cost-benefit line looks like for PR person versus life coach.
That's a lot of yes-men. Maybe we should bring back Court Jester as a profession.
I wonder what the cost-benefit line looks like for PR person versus life coach.
That's a lot of yes-men. Maybe we should bring back Court Jester as a profession.
> No amount of turd polishing with unlimited money and PR talent was able to make people to like him
I don't rule it out. Gates managed to pull it off when I didn't think it was possible
I don't rule it out. Gates managed to pull it off when I didn't think it was possible
I don't think Gates is nearly as uncharismatic as Zucc. I mean, just look at his old mugshot.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bill_Gat...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bill_Gat...
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet Testing mattresses : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XFwlNVRD5M
[deleted]
He also made Facebook hire a full-time pollster to run polls about his popularity.
* visited 50 states "to meet people".
At least we got some memes out of that.
At least we got some memes out of that.
[deleted]
He doesn't need to be likeable to win the elections. Biden is going to implement extremely inclusive policies that large swaths of americans, especially on the south, are allergic to. So in 4 years, Zuck will simply promise to undo all these policies and those americans will have no other choice but to vote for him.
Ah yes, the people in the south are going to vote for a Silicon Valley liberal.
So did Trump at one point. I won't rule out anything anymore.
Trump has a huge base that shares his beliefs. I am not convinced that Zuck has any other then those he pays at his company. Everyone that has ever worked with him in his early years and those he acquired (Instagram/ Whatsapp) have distance themselves the moment they vested their equity.
To be fair to Trump, he played with the idea for decades and his timing was impeccable.
Someone (or several someones) predicted this a long time ago and I adopted it as my own.
* To elect a female president, there would first have to be a male POC president
* The president immediately after the first POC president would be the whitest, loudest man they could find.
The only thing wrong about the second prediction is that we got the orangest, loudest man they could find.
* To elect a female president, there would first have to be a male POC president
* The president immediately after the first POC president would be the whitest, loudest man they could find.
The only thing wrong about the second prediction is that we got the orangest, loudest man they could find.
[deleted]
Some mainstream media outlets seem to be going out of their way to spin a softer narrative on-behalf of Whatsapp/FB. They seem to believe that users may be too stupid to understand Facebook's moves and subsequent public relations. Looking at you New York Times.
I mean the people's reaction is out of scale with the people's prior reaction to these things, but that's fine with me: it's an overdue correction.
- WhatsApp: Oh wait, SMS etc. is completely insecure
- Signal: Oh wait, WhatsApp is structurally unable to be a force for privacy
- Matrix: Oh wait, even benevolent centralization is an unnecessary risk
I look forward to the public's increasing wisdom with these matter.
- WhatsApp: Oh wait, SMS etc. is completely insecure
- Signal: Oh wait, WhatsApp is structurally unable to be a force for privacy
- Matrix: Oh wait, even benevolent centralization is an unnecessary risk
I look forward to the public's increasing wisdom with these matter.
Do you think the recent privacy changes in WhatsApp is Facebook preparing in case antitrust started in December forces them to separate WhatsApp into its own entity?
As it is now, with WhatsApp being part of it, FB has access to any (non-e2e) data by default. The new agreement might have been them hedging to keep it that way, which backfired spectacularly.
As it is now, with WhatsApp being part of it, FB has access to any (non-e2e) data by default. The new agreement might have been them hedging to keep it that way, which backfired spectacularly.
Too bad. I was really looking forward to the great exodus of Feb 8th.
The exodus is well underway. This sleazy delay won’t stop it.
Phew. I hope this means Signal gets back to normal soon.
Also, Signal should introduce some kind of paid subscription with a few critically important qualities:
1. Anonymous payment that binds subscriptions to users without retaining anything about who paid. Like a prepaid GSM SIM. All Signal needs to know is that the current terminal uses a paid subscription.
2. Ability to buy a cheaper bulk/family bundle. I use Signal to talk to family and close friends and would like to pay for myself and my parents, at the very least.
3. Price it differently in different countries. $1 in India is as heavy as $10 in US. This is super mega important.
4. Setup dedicated servers for subscription users with a much better service level. The service collapse that happened today should not happen again. There should also be an option for a fully encrypted backup that Signal cannot decrypt just on the server side to store personal conversation logs.
Also, Signal should introduce some kind of paid subscription with a few critically important qualities:
1. Anonymous payment that binds subscriptions to users without retaining anything about who paid. Like a prepaid GSM SIM. All Signal needs to know is that the current terminal uses a paid subscription.
2. Ability to buy a cheaper bulk/family bundle. I use Signal to talk to family and close friends and would like to pay for myself and my parents, at the very least.
3. Price it differently in different countries. $1 in India is as heavy as $10 in US. This is super mega important.
4. Setup dedicated servers for subscription users with a much better service level. The service collapse that happened today should not happen again. There should also be an option for a fully encrypted backup that Signal cannot decrypt just on the server side to store personal conversation logs.
> We’ve heard from so many people how much confusion there is around our recent update. There's been a lot of misinformation causing concern and we want to help everyone understand our principles and the facts.
Nonsense. They've been impacted by uninstalls/deletions and trying to salvage things.
Nonsense. They've been impacted by uninstalls/deletions and trying to salvage things.
I already accepted the new terms. I hope it means it doesn't matter if someone accepted it or not.
I'm amazed how FB keeps falling for such things. From my understanding this story has blown out out of proportion and the main reason is the way FB handled those privacy changes.
I'm amazed how FB keeps falling for such things. From my understanding this story has blown out out of proportion and the main reason is the way FB handled those privacy changes.
If only this was the response also for Oculus and its new need for a Facebook account to work.
Might be a bit late.
Telegram got 25 million new unique users. Signal got 50 million, so much that it melted their servers for a while.
The masses now know that there are options to Whatsapp, maybe that'll trigger a move to more options, maybe not. We'll see.
Telegram got 25 million new unique users. Signal got 50 million, so much that it melted their servers for a while.
The masses now know that there are options to Whatsapp, maybe that'll trigger a move to more options, maybe not. We'll see.
Absolutely speaking, a large number. Relative to the number of WhatsApp users worldwide? Maybe 1-3%?
Your math is based on net new users. But a lot of people are moving to Signal and dumping WhatsApp. So they impact is bigger.
Well, they will probably continue ramming this through in other countries where they have a lot more users without having to worry about any privacy implications.
Anyone surprised by the move towards monetization wasn’t paying much attention when they were acquired for $19 billion a few years ago.
Too little too late.
Use Signal (and donate/make a PR every once in awhile).
Been following Whisper Systems since Redphone and TextSecure, so glad to see them shine.
Use Signal (and donate/make a PR every once in awhile).
Been following Whisper Systems since Redphone and TextSecure, so glad to see them shine.
At least in our social circle, the move from WhatsApp is already underway and won't be reversed. Even if they cancelled their plan, Facebook is a platform that must be avoided and this "incident" finally helped getting that message across.
A sticking plaster on a haemorrhaging wound - and I'm hopeful the bleeding will continue.
Matt Stoller from BIG is right, only jail time for executives guilty of breaking the Sherman Act will stop these monopolies now.
Matt Stoller from BIG is right, only jail time for executives guilty of breaking the Sherman Act will stop these monopolies now.
My fear is that people will say "Oh, I can now keep Whatsapp around for just a bit longer" and the furore will die down. Luckily, my colleagues, not just friends, have moved over so I can at least delete it after asking them if they mind connecting on Signal.
The URL should probably be updated to:
https://blog.whatsapp.com/giving-more-time-for-our-recent-up...
I switched to signal, and was surprised at people following without question.
I'm surprised they cared enough to delay the changes. I guess they will probably just restructure the changes enough that they can get away with the same stuff in a slightly different way in the future.
I guess that somebody in Marketing eventually took notice. I wonder if they participated to the talks about how to show the new Terms of Service or if they didn't foresee how people would react.
Do NOT trust Facebook. They have consistently been bad actors. Move to MeWe, Signal, Telegram, or any other platform. The market MUST punish Facebook for their awful behavior.
Delay and use the word misinformation. -1 more trust point.
I'm surprised they didn't flat-out call it "fake news".
The amount of commercial time on cable TV keeps increasing as networks try to make up for shrinking audiences by stuffing more ads.
That may happen to Facebook in a few years.
That may happen to Facebook in a few years.
Hmm not trying to flame the fire, but it's kind of coincidental that the day Whatsapp delays the privacy change is the same day Signal servers are down.
[deleted]
Why do you think Facebook bought Whatsapp for billions of dollars? because they like serving users for free?
I wonder how many users they’ve lost for this shift to happen. On what metric is it based?
I have to say that this renews my faith in something. I don't know what that something is, but I think it's important.
Users have been going to Signal en masse, in their millions upon millions, to the point that Facebook had to back down.
It's a sort of democratic consumerism. I don't want to call it capitalism, but is that what it is?
Either way, it's nice to know that people can make big corporations change their minds sometimes.
Users have been going to Signal en masse, in their millions upon millions, to the point that Facebook had to back down.
It's a sort of democratic consumerism. I don't want to call it capitalism, but is that what it is?
Either way, it's nice to know that people can make big corporations change their minds sometimes.
Kinda surprised that Signal doesn't support bitcoin/crypto donations
It's gonna eventually come. Billion user services just don't pay for themselves. I don't say this to defend Facebook, because if even they sell it, the next person down the line will still be faced with the same monetization issues.
How about actually paying for the product, like it was when I signed up?
Weren't they profitable when they were charging 1€ a year per user before? I wouldn't mind going back to that.
Yea. I also find it hard to believe that WhatsApp wouldn't be profitable with $1 per user per year. There is a lot you can do with $2bil a year.
I think I read that Brian Acton called out Sandberg on that once. That it wasn't just about profitability, but greed.
I think I read that Brian Acton called out Sandberg on that once. That it wasn't just about profitability, but greed.
They were supposedly charging that, but the first year was free, and then every time you were close to running out of free time you would get x more free months. I chained those free months for years until it became completely free. So it was actually free to use.
WhatsApp used to have paying customers.
Facebook and Whatsapp can absolutely exist and sustain itself if accounts were paid and cost a couple dollars per month.
So go back to charging a small fee. People used to pay it and with the network effect they still would.
public utility time!
"Delays"
So, they're gonna keep going.
So, they're gonna keep going.
Wash, rinse, repeat.. the FB MO
don't worry, they're collecting your data for years actually. /s
I think most people know about the collecting data thing. But WhatsApp/Facebook made a big mistake by forcing longtime users to accept the new rules or otherwise to get excluded from the community. This creates a very bad feeling because it’s like someone puts a gun on your chest. Take this or die! Ashole move...
Basically means it's better for them to not be so transparent.
too little, too late
Facebook-owned WhatsApp said they would work to "clear up misinformation" around its privacy policy.
Translation: "Oops, sorry we turned up the flame under the pot of frogs too quickly. We will boil them more slowly in the future."
(I've also heard it claimed that it's an urban legend that frogs won't jump if you cook them slowly. But, maybe it's an urban legend that it's an urban legend.)
(I've also heard it claimed that it's an urban legend that frogs won't jump if you cook them slowly. But, maybe it's an urban legend that it's an urban legend.)
It's a myth, probably, though it was thought to be true for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
The wikipedia article doesn't really make it clear why it is a myth.
Working experiment. Frogs stay in water.
> Heinzmann heated the frogs over the course of 90 minutes from about 21 °C to 37.5 °C, a rate of less than 0.2 °C per minute.
Failed experiment. Frog jumps.
> as the water is heated by about 2 °F (about 1 °C), per minute, the frog becomes increasingly active as it tries to escape, and eventually jumps out if it can.
There's a bunch of anecdotes from biologists and veterinarians saying 'ofcourse the frog will try to leave', but no modern experiments to see if a frog will escape if the water is boiled sufficiently slow.
Working experiment. Frogs stay in water.
> Heinzmann heated the frogs over the course of 90 minutes from about 21 °C to 37.5 °C, a rate of less than 0.2 °C per minute.
Failed experiment. Frog jumps.
> as the water is heated by about 2 °F (about 1 °C), per minute, the frog becomes increasingly active as it tries to escape, and eventually jumps out if it can.
There's a bunch of anecdotes from biologists and veterinarians saying 'ofcourse the frog will try to leave', but no modern experiments to see if a frog will escape if the water is boiled sufficiently slow.
best interpretation right here!
> (I've also heard it claimed that it's an urban legend that frogs won't jump if you cook them slowly. But, maybe it's an urban legend that it's an urban legend.)
Come on, it only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize no animal would allow itself to be boiled alive, be it slowly or quickly.
If you're in a bath and you increase the heat until you're hot, do you keep increasing the heat or do you jump out when it's too hot?
Come on, it only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize no animal would allow itself to be boiled alive, be it slowly or quickly.
If you're in a bath and you increase the heat until you're hot, do you keep increasing the heat or do you jump out when it's too hot?
The legend is that if they're submerged in hot water and heated slowly enough, the brain starts having problems due to the heat before the skin gets too uncomfortable.
> no animal would allow itself to be boiled alive
You're surely not suggesting frogs have a theory of self, and while there's evolutionary pressure against walking into forest fires or too hot sun-baked rocks, there are very few environments where animals would be subjected to slowly increasing water temperatures that eventually reach fatal temperatures. If it's not obvious that there's evolutionary pressure for this situation, and we don't think frogs have a conscious self-preservation, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the legend out-of-hand.
> no animal would allow itself to be boiled alive
You're surely not suggesting frogs have a theory of self, and while there's evolutionary pressure against walking into forest fires or too hot sun-baked rocks, there are very few environments where animals would be subjected to slowly increasing water temperatures that eventually reach fatal temperatures. If it's not obvious that there's evolutionary pressure for this situation, and we don't think frogs have a conscious self-preservation, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the legend out-of-hand.
> You're surely not suggesting frogs have a theory of self
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
You don't need a theory of self to explain this. Frogs are living creatures with an instinct to live, and heat stroke is bad for survival. It's no different from wandering into the desert sun - you cannot thermoregulate your body past a certain point.
> The legend is that if they're submerged in hot water and heated slowly enough, the brain starts having problems due to the heat before the skin gets too uncomfortable.
By that logic people will stay outside and freeze to death from hypothermia which eventually causes people to believe they're hot while literally freezing to death, even though long before that happens any functioning human being would say "I'm cold and need to warm up now!" before suffering any significant health problems.
It's a fucking dumb legend and regurgitating it does humanity a disservice. I am aware it is a common saying and what it means. I just wish people would think more before repeating everything they hear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
You don't need a theory of self to explain this. Frogs are living creatures with an instinct to live, and heat stroke is bad for survival. It's no different from wandering into the desert sun - you cannot thermoregulate your body past a certain point.
> The legend is that if they're submerged in hot water and heated slowly enough, the brain starts having problems due to the heat before the skin gets too uncomfortable.
By that logic people will stay outside and freeze to death from hypothermia which eventually causes people to believe they're hot while literally freezing to death, even though long before that happens any functioning human being would say "I'm cold and need to warm up now!" before suffering any significant health problems.
It's a fucking dumb legend and regurgitating it does humanity a disservice. I am aware it is a common saying and what it means. I just wish people would think more before repeating everything they hear.
> no animal would allow itself to be boiled alive
The most plain reading of this statement implies both understanding of the situation, and consent, which implies an understanding of self and the implications for the self. I'm saying you clearly don't mean that... so you must be anthropomorphizing some evolved environmental response as "not allowing".
I'm arguing that very few frogs and their ancestors have been in situations where the best response to slowly rising heat is to move frantically. So, maybe the have some other evolved response that will get them out of the pot, but it's almost certainly not an evolved response to an evolutionary pressure of slowly rising water temperatures.
The best response to a hot desert is to move slowly and surely to some place to hide, which is the opposite optimal strategy for a boiling pot of water (jump rapidly, try as many times as possible in a short time). An evolved response to survive in a hot desert would work against the boiling pot situation.
> By that logic people will stay outside and freeze to death from hypothermia
This analogy makes no sense unless you think frogs have a human-like ability to understand situations and plan. Humans' response to extreme cold is dominated by their understanding of the self and their situation. Even some humans will die of hypothermia in their own homes before seeking help[0]. Humans starting to get hypothermia don't run around frantically, which is what heated frogs need to do in order to survive a hot pot. The analogy is just badly broken.
This is your second response that seems to be anthropomorphizing frogs. Frogs aren't just small slow thinking humans without opposable thumbs. Their response to situation is different in kind, not just degree, from that of humans. Reasoning by analogy with human behavior is downright misleading.
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hide+and+die+syndrome
The most plain reading of this statement implies both understanding of the situation, and consent, which implies an understanding of self and the implications for the self. I'm saying you clearly don't mean that... so you must be anthropomorphizing some evolved environmental response as "not allowing".
I'm arguing that very few frogs and their ancestors have been in situations where the best response to slowly rising heat is to move frantically. So, maybe the have some other evolved response that will get them out of the pot, but it's almost certainly not an evolved response to an evolutionary pressure of slowly rising water temperatures.
The best response to a hot desert is to move slowly and surely to some place to hide, which is the opposite optimal strategy for a boiling pot of water (jump rapidly, try as many times as possible in a short time). An evolved response to survive in a hot desert would work against the boiling pot situation.
> By that logic people will stay outside and freeze to death from hypothermia
This analogy makes no sense unless you think frogs have a human-like ability to understand situations and plan. Humans' response to extreme cold is dominated by their understanding of the self and their situation. Even some humans will die of hypothermia in their own homes before seeking help[0]. Humans starting to get hypothermia don't run around frantically, which is what heated frogs need to do in order to survive a hot pot. The analogy is just badly broken.
This is your second response that seems to be anthropomorphizing frogs. Frogs aren't just small slow thinking humans without opposable thumbs. Their response to situation is different in kind, not just degree, from that of humans. Reasoning by analogy with human behavior is downright misleading.
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hide+and+die+syndrome
I'm not anthropomorphizing frogs. I'm saying frogs have an instinct to survive, like any living creature.
> I'm not anthropomorphizing frogs. I'm saying frogs have an instinct to survive, like any living creature.
Ah, here's the problem. They don't have an instinct to survive as such. They have a variety of evolved instinctual behaviors that have a net effect of increasing survival rate, but there's no evidence that any of these instincts involve an awareness of mortal danger an in intermediate mechanism. That is, it's not a direct instinctual response to a realization of mortal danger, like you'd get in humans and perhaps some other larger-brained species.
Particularly for smaller brained animals, to say that there's one instinct to survive ("an instinct to survive") is a sloppy over-generalization from a bunch of specific corner-case instincts.
Particularly for more simple-brained creatures like frogs, you can't reason about behaviors as if they've evolved a sense of mortal danger and then deductively reason their response to mortal danger. They have a bunch of evolved survival-enhancing responses to specific stimuli, but it's an over-generalization to say they have a generalized instinct to survive.
Take domestic sheep, for example. Given the chance, they'll often get them stuck on thin cliff edges while looking for grass, and then need to be rescued by humans or else fall to their deaths. You can't just say that sheep have evolved a generalized survival instinct and cliffs are a mortal danger and then use deductive reasoning to conclude that sheep avoid cliffs.
This sort of misuse of deductive reasoning held human civilization back for millennia, until the enlightenment brought much more widespread use of inductive scientific methods. Deductive and inductive reasoning both have their places, but I find it's human instinct to over-use deductive reasoning. (That is, there's a tendency to take overly general high-level axioms and assume they say things about all specific cases.)
Ah, here's the problem. They don't have an instinct to survive as such. They have a variety of evolved instinctual behaviors that have a net effect of increasing survival rate, but there's no evidence that any of these instincts involve an awareness of mortal danger an in intermediate mechanism. That is, it's not a direct instinctual response to a realization of mortal danger, like you'd get in humans and perhaps some other larger-brained species.
Particularly for smaller brained animals, to say that there's one instinct to survive ("an instinct to survive") is a sloppy over-generalization from a bunch of specific corner-case instincts.
Particularly for more simple-brained creatures like frogs, you can't reason about behaviors as if they've evolved a sense of mortal danger and then deductively reason their response to mortal danger. They have a bunch of evolved survival-enhancing responses to specific stimuli, but it's an over-generalization to say they have a generalized instinct to survive.
Take domestic sheep, for example. Given the chance, they'll often get them stuck on thin cliff edges while looking for grass, and then need to be rescued by humans or else fall to their deaths. You can't just say that sheep have evolved a generalized survival instinct and cliffs are a mortal danger and then use deductive reasoning to conclude that sheep avoid cliffs.
This sort of misuse of deductive reasoning held human civilization back for millennia, until the enlightenment brought much more widespread use of inductive scientific methods. Deductive and inductive reasoning both have their places, but I find it's human instinct to over-use deductive reasoning. (That is, there's a tendency to take overly general high-level axioms and assume they say things about all specific cases.)
> Particularly for more simple-brained creatures like frogs, you can't reason about behaviors as if they've evolved a sense of mortal danger and then deductively reason their response to mortal danger. They have a bunch of evolved survival-enhancing responses to specific stimuli, but it's an over-generalization to say they have a generalized instinct to survive.
I really think you're making something out of nothing, and this is no different from humans, and the entire argument over sense of self is an irrelevant tangent to everything I've said.
My ability to avoid dangerous situations and survive is philosophically no different from an amoeba, and I think all your arguments to the contrary are nonsensical. You can easily concoct situations where humans would die too. I'm getting weird Bible vibes honestly, since you seem to think humans are somehow special.
I really think you're making something out of nothing, and this is no different from humans, and the entire argument over sense of self is an irrelevant tangent to everything I've said.
My ability to avoid dangerous situations and survive is philosophically no different from an amoeba, and I think all your arguments to the contrary are nonsensical. You can easily concoct situations where humans would die too. I'm getting weird Bible vibes honestly, since you seem to think humans are somehow special.
> seem to think humans are somehow special
Well, not just humans, but large-brained animals that show evidence of understanding of their environment and an some degree of planning ahead.
If we were talking about great apes, cetaceans, or perhaps cephalopods or corvids, maybe we could find some middle ground.
But, if you believe a frog's ability to survive is greatly enhanced by its ability to understand and plan ahead, or a human's ability to survive isn't fundamentally altered by their ability to understand and plan ahead (to the extent that analogies between frog and human survival behavior break down), then we're at a fundamental impasse and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well, not just humans, but large-brained animals that show evidence of understanding of their environment and an some degree of planning ahead.
If we were talking about great apes, cetaceans, or perhaps cephalopods or corvids, maybe we could find some middle ground.
But, if you believe a frog's ability to survive is greatly enhanced by its ability to understand and plan ahead, or a human's ability to survive isn't fundamentally altered by their ability to understand and plan ahead (to the extent that analogies between frog and human survival behavior break down), then we're at a fundamental impasse and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why would critical thinking exclude the possibility? There are situations where death comes before the threshold of discomfort.
Like getting hit by a bus. Damn it Carl, how am I meant to maintain your code now?
Or that heat sensitive proteins in some animal respond to extreme gradients.
> There are situations where death comes before the threshold of discomfort.
Not for anything we can actually sense. Volume, temperature, pressure - you will feel wildly uncomfortable long before any of these are extreme enough to seriously impact your health.
Is there any example of something we can feel, but we don't feel uncomfortable before it kills us? All I can think of are drugs.
Not for anything we can actually sense. Volume, temperature, pressure - you will feel wildly uncomfortable long before any of these are extreme enough to seriously impact your health.
Is there any example of something we can feel, but we don't feel uncomfortable before it kills us? All I can think of are drugs.
Oxygen deprivation
Yes. Search YouTube for high-altitude simulation chambers and hypoxia. I seem to think Derek from Veritasium has a very good demonstration where he gets euhporic and seems unaware that he's severely mentally compromised.
Also, I once helped a friend set up and tear down an art project that was a flying remote-controlled statue, held up partially by a weather balloon full of helium. In tearing down, I didn't want to let the helium go to waste. My first breath of pure helium went fine. My second full breath of pure helium in a row, I barely had enough time to sit down, say "whoah" and cough the helium out before falling down and twitching on the gymnasium floor. A woke up right at the same time my artist friend realized I wasn't joking around. Had I died, I would have felt no pain, not even the slightest discomfort.
Breathing pure helium, I learned you have about 1-2 seconds of warning that you're hypoxic before you pass out. I figured it was more like 15-30 seconds. Luckily, I didn't die, partially because, as a low molecular weight gas, helium has a high rate of effusion, and on my back, it being lighter than air helped it escape my lungs. Argon may very well have killed me because it has a much lower rate of effusion, and (also related to its higher molar mass) it's also heavier than air.
Also, I once helped a friend set up and tear down an art project that was a flying remote-controlled statue, held up partially by a weather balloon full of helium. In tearing down, I didn't want to let the helium go to waste. My first breath of pure helium went fine. My second full breath of pure helium in a row, I barely had enough time to sit down, say "whoah" and cough the helium out before falling down and twitching on the gymnasium floor. A woke up right at the same time my artist friend realized I wasn't joking around. Had I died, I would have felt no pain, not even the slightest discomfort.
Breathing pure helium, I learned you have about 1-2 seconds of warning that you're hypoxic before you pass out. I figured it was more like 15-30 seconds. Luckily, I didn't die, partially because, as a low molecular weight gas, helium has a high rate of effusion, and on my back, it being lighter than air helped it escape my lungs. Argon may very well have killed me because it has a much lower rate of effusion, and (also related to its higher molar mass) it's also heavier than air.
> you will feel wildly uncomfortable long before any of these are extreme enough to seriously impact your health.
Radiation, disease, drugs (chemical poisoning), falling, can all pass the point of inevitable death before you notice that they are a problem.
People frequently die unnecessarily of heart attacks, because they don't realise that the symptoms merit an urgent response.
Radiation, disease, drugs (chemical poisoning), falling, can all pass the point of inevitable death before you notice that they are a problem.
People frequently die unnecessarily of heart attacks, because they don't realise that the symptoms merit an urgent response.
If you could feel something before it harms you then you could do something about it. If you can't, like with radiation, then you can't.
You can feel heat before you die of heat stroke.
You can feel heat before you die of heat stroke.
Here's an experiment you can try at home. It doesn't prove that humans or frogs won't notice extreme temperatures, but it does show that it would be reasonable to believe that it's conceivable that some animal can only detect relative temperature.
1. Prepare three bowls of water, one cold (but bearable), one hot (but bearable), and one lukewarm.
2. Place one hand in the cold water, and the other hand in the hot water.
3. Wait a minute or two.
4. Place both hands in the lukewarm water at the same time.
5. WTF, is this hot or is it cold?
1. Prepare three bowls of water, one cold (but bearable), one hot (but bearable), and one lukewarm.
2. Place one hand in the cold water, and the other hand in the hot water.
3. Wait a minute or two.
4. Place both hands in the lukewarm water at the same time.
5. WTF, is this hot or is it cold?
> Come on, it only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize no animal would allow itself to be boiled alive, be it slowly or quickly.
It's funny to read that, until you realize, that it is exactly what humans are doing in regards to global warming.
It's funny to read that, until you realize, that it is exactly what humans are doing in regards to global warming.
I'm sure global warming isn't that bad. We have a long way to go before we reach Venus levels.
Cats have been known to sleep on radiators until they get heatstroke.
It's a common expression. I think I heard it first in An Unconvenient Truth about climate change.
"My 9th grade science teacher always said that if you put a frog in boiling hot water, it would jump out. But put it in cold water, and heat it up gradually, it would slowly boil to death."
Harry Dalton (Pierce Brosnan) in Dante's Peak (1997)
Harry Dalton (Pierce Brosnan) in Dante's Peak (1997)
I've jumped into a hot tub before.
How Cancel Culture works:
Day 1) Users are outraged and company says there will be changes! (Twitter bans Trump)
Day 2) Users are angry and company shows changes they will be making (yup Trumps account is gone.)
Day 3) Users move on to something else and company goes back to whatever they want to do (Trump posts video on twitter, but this one is ok, we'll let this one slide.)
Give it a few days and WhatsApp will be back to business as usual.
Day 1) Users are outraged and company says there will be changes! (Twitter bans Trump)
Day 2) Users are angry and company shows changes they will be making (yup Trumps account is gone.)
Day 3) Users move on to something else and company goes back to whatever they want to do (Trump posts video on twitter, but this one is ok, we'll let this one slide.)
Give it a few days and WhatsApp will be back to business as usual.
(1) claims that Facebook promised Whatsapp would not be monetised, and that Facebook and and Whatsapp's data would not be combined. This information was also provided to European antitrust regulators
(2) missed out on $850 stock option grants vesting by quitting early over disputes with Facebook about monetisation strategy involving advertising
(3) promoted #deletefacebook on Whatsapp following the Cambridge Anlalytica scandal
(4) Donated $50m to the non-for-profit alternative, Signal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton