3 ms·
> I don't... did you even read TFA? Yes, I did. Thanks for asking. > They don't have to pay anything Yes, but they endured reputational damage, and companies
by _-___________-_ 6y ago
> I don't... did you even read TFA?
Yes, I did. Thanks for asking.
> They don't have to pay anything
Yes, but they endured reputational damage, and companies hypothetically lying about it now could reasonably expect to have to pay something in future enforcements, which is what I was trying to get at in my previous comment. Reading it now, it was really sloppily worded by lumping together those things, but I'll leave it as it was so that the rest of this thread makes sense.
> they don't have to actually fulfill their prior claims
Given that they don't claim it any more, I'm not sure that they could be forced to start doing it -- put another way, not having E2E encryption is not a crime as long as you don't claim to have it.
- jfrunyon 6y agoHow much actual reputational damage could they have possibly endured? I haven't noticed any fewer people using Zoom. It's a consent order. They're willingly agreeing to it in order to avoid other costs (like fines and a lengthy trial). There's no "forced to" involved.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago> I haven't noticed any fewer people using Zoom. I think this probably varies a lot between social groups; I know of many people (including non-technical) who were motivated to explore alternatives after reading news articles about Zoom's behaviour. A bunch of non-technical friends subsequently started to use meet.jit.si for meeting up, playing board games, etc, for example.
- gravitas 6y agoZoom's revenue is in corporate accounts, just like Slack - my 10k ppl company uses branded enterprise accounts on both systems, we even have VOIP via them with DIDs. Companies of size do not pivot quickly on telecom and messaging system changes, it takes a lot more than a single issue or two for our money to not be in their pockets.