4 ms·

What do you mean by "user's rights" and by "sent"? Why shouldn't it be possible? If the TOS and app allow and enable it, it can be done. This sounds no differe

What do you mean by "user's rights" and by "sent"? Why shouldn't it be possible? If the TOS and app allow and enable it, it can be done. This sounds no different from, say, Snapchat, except that the deletion is triggered by the sender instead of by a timer.

ikeboy 10y ago
It's the same thing people complain about wrt unfree software, e.g. Kindle deleting purchased books remotely if they were uploaded by someone without the rights to the book. The difference with snapshot is that their whole gimmick was the deleting thing. You had no expectation of permanency. But I'm sure many use Viber with the expectation that they'll be able to access old communications; after all, it's on their own device. Sure, they have the right to do it, in the same way that Gmail could implement the same anti feature, in the same way Amazon had the right to delete books. But that just causes me not to use them, just like I'd stop using Gmail if they did that. (I still use a Kindle, but I've only ever purchased one book, and read it right away. I'm not dependent on them not deleting my books.)
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  If a service offers a feature, it's within customers' rights to use that feature. If Viber is unilaterally deleting messages, that's an issue (as ephemeral messaging doesn't seem to be their primary intent). But if Alice is able to delete her messages to Bob on Bob's device, and both know this (or should know this, they chose the messaging platform), Bob has not had his rights violated. He's complying with Alice's request (automatically). The comparison to Amazon is not apt. That was Amazon, not the seller of the book, that chose to delete it (in that case because the seller didn't have a right to sell, though given it was 1984 it was rather amusing/ironic). If, for instance, Amazon's digital platform allowed sellers to remove their content from Amazon's listings AND from "buyers'" devices, then 1) no one should be too surprised when it happens, 2) no one should use that platform.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    The comparison to Amazon is about the remotely deleting part, not the why part. I have a problem with anything on my device being deleted without my consent.
    - robbiemitchell 10y ago
      You used the word "sent" earlier and the phrase "on my device" now. But it seems the app isn't transferring the message to you, only presenting it -- like a website. (Does the message exist outside the app?) Not being pedantic for the sake of it, just pointing out the language you are using is from a position of ownership -- you receiving and owning a message sent to you, and it is then being deleted -- while the app seems to be retaining all rights with the sender, who merely uses the app to present a message to you, and can revoke viewing privileges at any time.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        Once it can be viewed offline, the sender shouldn't be able to delete it.
    - lotso 10y ago
      I think this is a valuable feature for users of the product. Some users like this feature. If you don't, just use another product. Not everything needs to be a philosophical debate.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        I don't think the feature is well known. What percent of Viber users could tell you that messages can be deleted without their consent?
        lotso 10y ago
        I think that's irrelevant. It's part of the product, is an intentional feature that has value, and is not even an uncommon feature (exists on Instagram DMs.

ikeboy 10y ago

It's the same thing people complain about wrt unfree software, e.g. Kindle deleting purchased books remotely if they were uploaded by someone without the rights to the book. The difference with snapshot is that their whole gimmick was the deleting thing. You had no expectation of permanency. But I'm sure many use Viber with the expectation that they'll be able to access old communications; after all, it's on their own device. Sure, they have the right to do it, in the same way that Gmail could implement the same anti feature, in the same way Amazon had the right to delete books. But that just causes me not to use them, just like I'd stop using Gmail if they did that. (I still use a Kindle, but I've only ever purchased one book, and read it right away. I'm not dependent on them not deleting my books.)

Jtsummers 10y ago
If a service offers a feature, it's within customers' rights to use that feature. If Viber is unilaterally deleting messages, that's an issue (as ephemeral messaging doesn't seem to be their primary intent). But if Alice is able to delete her messages to Bob on Bob's device, and both know this (or should know this, they chose the messaging platform), Bob has not had his rights violated. He's complying with Alice's request (automatically). The comparison to Amazon is not apt. That was Amazon, not the seller of the book, that chose to delete it (in that case because the seller didn't have a right to sell, though given it was 1984 it was rather amusing/ironic). If, for instance, Amazon's digital platform allowed sellers to remove their content from Amazon's listings AND from "buyers'" devices, then 1) no one should be too surprised when it happens, 2) no one should use that platform.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  The comparison to Amazon is about the remotely deleting part, not the why part. I have a problem with anything on my device being deleted without my consent.
  - robbiemitchell 10y ago
    You used the word "sent" earlier and the phrase "on my device" now. But it seems the app isn't transferring the message to you, only presenting it -- like a website. (Does the message exist outside the app?) Not being pedantic for the sake of it, just pointing out the language you are using is from a position of ownership -- you receiving and owning a message sent to you, and it is then being deleted -- while the app seems to be retaining all rights with the sender, who merely uses the app to present a message to you, and can revoke viewing privileges at any time.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Once it can be viewed offline, the sender shouldn't be able to delete it.
  - lotso 10y ago
    I think this is a valuable feature for users of the product. Some users like this feature. If you don't, just use another product. Not everything needs to be a philosophical debate.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      I don't think the feature is well known. What percent of Viber users could tell you that messages can be deleted without their consent?
      - lotso 10y ago
        I think that's irrelevant. It's part of the product, is an intentional feature that has value, and is not even an uncommon feature (exists on Instagram DMs.