3 ms·
Sorry, but my point stands. In Facebook's case, there is absolutely zero reason to assume good intentions, give the benefit of the doubt, have general good-will
by high_derivative 7y ago
Sorry, but my point stands. In Facebook's case, there is absolutely zero reason to assume good intentions, give the benefit of the doubt, have general good-will, or believe its employees regarding privacy aims.
- la_barba 7y agoWhich social media company would you believe regarding privacy?
- chillydawg 7y agoNone, obviously.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoThe Masons.
- fghtr 7y agoPurism: https://librem.one/ https://librem.one/
- rtkwe 7y agoAny social with a monthly fee is not going to hit the same network criticality that makes Facebook reign supreme. Attracting people to a new service is hard enough tell them it'll cost 50$ a year and it's hopeless.
- gregknicholson 7y agoThe network is not the same thing as the provider. Anyone can use Mastodon for free, so Purism is part of a larger network than just Purism.
- saagarjha 7y agoY Combinator?
- nafey 7y agoNothing such as absolute trust. It has to be a relative comparison. For me it is Apple, Google, Facebook in that order.
- wpietri 7y agoAny social media company whose business isn't renting your eyeballs to the highest bidder.
- reroute1 7y agoIt doesn't stand in those countries obviously it is available there. There is no reason to assume bad intentions either and your first statement was just a lot of assumptions and already has been corrected for being not completely true.