6 ms·
No they aren't? Random VPN app is like one of these[0], and Facebook is a $100 billion social media giant, trusted by billions of people. [0] https://goo.gl/kD
by dingo_bat 9y ago
No they aren't? Random VPN app is like one of these[0], and Facebook is a $100 billion social media giant, trusted by billions of people.
[0] https://goo.gl/kDPjxf https://goo.gl/kDPjxf
- Fins 9y agoBut at least with those Random VPN apps there is some chance that they are not actually stealing your data. With Facebook there is not. And if billions of people trust Facebook, that's just a sad commentary on the amound of critical thinking in the world.
- yousir 9y agoCreating an app and calling it "protection" when it is in fact spying on you to give FB a glimpse of how you use the internet, this is something you are defending? And also, did you just call the gizmodo article "fake news"? It this [0] then also fake news to you? Seems to me you are getting your true news fix from a news feed somewhere. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-onavo-gives-social-media-firm-inside-peek-at-rivals-users-1502622003 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-onavo-gives-social-me...
- kup0 9y agoFacebook bought Onavo. Facebook owns Onavo. They are not a random VPN app. They are a Facebook property. They are touting the VPN as being protection, when in actuality they are using it to gather data on the users that use the VPN. I do not understand your comments in light of these facts. If one trusts Facebook, then using Onavo isn't a concern for them, but they should be aware just because it's a VPN it doesn't imply any kind of privacy or protection, and should be aware that Facebook's marketing/use of Onavo is shady. If one already does not trust Facebook, then it should be clear to stay away from Onavo, whether found randomly, through an app store, or advertised by Facebook.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Facebook is a $100 billion social media giant, trusted by billions of people. I think you are confused. "Used" and "trusted" mean very different things, and you seem to be using the latter where only the former is justifiable.