3 ms·

I'll never understand this kind of framing. Why not "How cyberstalkers are using a WhatsApp status loophole"? I mean it's not like WA added the loophole in an e

I'll never understand this kind of framing. Why not "How cyberstalkers are using a WhatsApp status loophole"? I mean it's not like WA added the loophole in an enthusiastic attempt to "aid" cyberstalkers.

ParanoidShroom 6y ago
There seems to be a hive mind attitude that bashing big tech is the "right thing" to do. And sensation ofcourse. "a typical example of what happens when companies don’t think about abusive relationships when they’re making their design decisions.". I'm annoyed about making assumptions and exposing them as truth. Who said they didn't? I'm not defending the creepy abuse of those people at all, but I feel the focus is aimed at the wrong creator here.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  I'm not sure if the hive mind is at play here. You should have the right to privacy, period. Some companies/messaging apps respect that, some don't. Users react accordingly. Plain and simple.
  - ParanoidShroom 6y ago
    I agree, and you do have that right, it's a gradient and yes this is up for debate. It really isn't this black and white. That being said, I would like to see a platform for discussion from BOTH parties instead of blogposts with no real communication.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
      > I would like to see a platform for discussion from BOTH parties I can't imagine it would ever happen, it would make no any sense from the business point of view unless you build your image as a privacy-focused company (Facebook doesn't even try). For example Tim Kendall's testimony [0] paints a very bleak picture of the motivations behind strategic decisions made at Facebook. There is simply no reason to reveal your real motivation and it makes more sense to hide behind corporate PRspeak, except a few very specific issues where you could make a case a privacy violation was caused by a bug etc. [0] https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/09.24.20%20CPC%20Witness%20Testimony_Kendall.pd https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycomme...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lol768 6y ago
Because, to be honest, it was entirely foreseeable. It's awful software engineering practice to just gloss over and ignore the privacy implications of this sort of feature! These risks should've been brought up during code review (if not when the feature was designed and specced) and there should've been an opt out added to the Privacy settings dialog.
dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
Because every little detail in WhatsApp is geared towards getting a certain result, it's meant to influence your behavior in a way. In the case of messaging apps, the aim is to make you use them longer/more frequently. The privacy of the user has zero importance here.

ParanoidShroom 6y ago

There seems to be a hive mind attitude that bashing big tech is the "right thing" to do. And sensation ofcourse. "a typical example of what happens when companies don’t think about abusive relationships when they’re making their design decisions.". I'm annoyed about making assumptions and exposing them as truth. Who said they didn't? I'm not defending the creepy abuse of those people at all, but I feel the focus is aimed at the wrong creator here.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
I'm not sure if the hive mind is at play here. You should have the right to privacy, period. Some companies/messaging apps respect that, some don't. Users react accordingly. Plain and simple.
- ParanoidShroom 6y ago
  I agree, and you do have that right, it's a gradient and yes this is up for debate. It really isn't this black and white. That being said, I would like to see a platform for discussion from BOTH parties instead of blogposts with no real communication.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
    > I would like to see a platform for discussion from BOTH parties I can't imagine it would ever happen, it would make no any sense from the business point of view unless you build your image as a privacy-focused company (Facebook doesn't even try). For example Tim Kendall's testimony [0] paints a very bleak picture of the motivations behind strategic decisions made at Facebook. There is simply no reason to reveal your real motivation and it makes more sense to hide behind corporate PRspeak, except a few very specific issues where you could make a case a privacy violation was caused by a bug etc. [0] https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/09.24.20%20CPC%20Witness%20Testimony_Kendall.pd https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycomme...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lol768 6y ago

Because, to be honest, it was entirely foreseeable. It's awful software engineering practice to just gloss over and ignore the privacy implications of this sort of feature! These risks should've been brought up during code review (if not when the feature was designed and specced) and there should've been an opt out added to the Privacy settings dialog.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago

Because every little detail in WhatsApp is geared towards getting a certain result, it's meant to influence your behavior in a way. In the case of messaging apps, the aim is to make you use them longer/more frequently. The privacy of the user has zero importance here.