6 ms·

As opposed to the non-monopolistic practices of Facebook and their messengers?

by gnuj3 5y ago

Tijdreiziger 5y ago
As much as I dislike Meta, at least they don't tie you to one specific brand of phone.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  On the other hand, Meta spies on you a hell of a lot more and then leases those results to others. And SMS is cross phone - even to feature phones
  - dmz73 5y ago
    They all spy on all of us all the time, Apple is no different. Apple probably has more data on their users than any other company out there. So far there are no known instances of Apple selling this information, most likely because they believe they get better value by keeping the information for themselves. But they still spy on users and it is only one step from keeping all that data for themselves to selling it to boost profits or charging fees to keep it private.
    - krrrh 5y ago
      This… isn’t true, unless you think everything in here is a lie: https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/ If it were all lies there would be lawsuits from the FTC and EU regulators, and there simply isn’t. Because advertising is not a significant part of Apple’s business model, profiling users is a liability that they prefer to avoid. This does slow down the introduction of features. For instance Google images had usable face recognition for years before Apple because Google does it in the cloud. It happens on device for Apple, and it takes longer to scan photos for faces. A slightly worse experience, but worth it in many consumers eyes. But, I mean apple even does wacky stuff like creating unique ids for each trip you route on maps that isn’t tied to your user id, and fuzzes the precise location using differential privacy for product improvement. You can read all about it in the white papers at the link I provided above.
      - dmz73 5y ago
        I agree that Apple makes it very difficult for other entities to track you but Apple themselves can track you and nowhere in their privacy info does it say they they can't or don't. The devil is in the detail. For instance: "Apple does not maintain a comprehensive user data profile of your activity across all our products and services to serve you targeted advertising." A naive reading of that sentence would be that Apple does not keep data on users. But that is not what that sentence says - they just don't use that data for targeted advertising. And as we all know these policies are subject to change at any time so even targeted advertising might become the part of the agreement without users noticing or having any say in it.
        krrrh 5y ago
        Again, read the white papers. The details go beyond either a naive or cynical reading of things that they highlight on the webpage that consumers are most interested in.
        dmz73 5y ago
        So $3T company that advertises privacy focus cannot unambiguously say on their web page about their privacy policy that they do not store data about users? Either they are incompetent in which case I don't really trust their attempt to protect my privacy or they are intentionally obtuse in which case I actually do trust that they know what they are doing and they store data on their users just like they say they do on they web page about privacy policy. Look, you can go ahead and trust them and that is fine. Just ask yourself what is the chance that Apple is the ONLY big tech company in the world that does not spy on its users.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        Apple does have a checkbox for "please learn things about me and serve me personalized ads" as well as another checkbox for "please send my analytics data back to you, I wanna share". Therefore they cannot categorically say they don't do it. But they certainly seem not to do it when those check boxes are off.
  - crossroadsguy 5y ago
    And Apple doesn’t? I’d like to assume (because I literally have no way of finding otherwise) Apple spies on us more than other platforms. It’s so tightly locked down and locked in that most of the ways you control tracking on other platforms are either impossible or frustratingly hard and cumbersome on Apple devices, let alone services. Top that with most of those services being much inferior to competition without a doubt other than the polished looks (and even that’s doubtful).
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Strange assumption. Apple certainly make claims that they don't (which can result in nasty legal consequences if they are lung), provides access to the data they collect on you on phone, allow people to opt out data collection. And that's all public. It's possible they're lying. Maybe you know they are lying. But unless you do it seems like a weird assumption.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    Re: spying, ostensibly both WhatsApp and iMessage messages are E2E encrypted, so I don’t really see a huge difference here (it still leaves either company with valuable metadata, but at least it’s better than nothing). Re: SMS, isn’t this entire thread about how SMS isn’t seen as a viable (on par with iMessage) alternative?
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      AFAIK, WhatsApp's client does a lot of tracking itself, it just observing the messages. I've also thought (esp. in the past) that WhatsApp claims if e2e didn't hold up irl. Meanwhile, yes this article is about how sms isn't a replacement. It's silly, because here and elsewhere people are saying the only place what the greentext nonsense exists is in articles like this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
walrus01 5y ago
as opposed to something like a Signal group chat
- gnuj3 5y ago
  The only thing that stops you from having Signal group chat is you and people you talk to. When I deleted WhatsApp few years ago, I dropped a message to all my contacts informing them I'm moving to Signal and I included a link if they wanted to download it. Alternatively, I'm happy to still use iMessage/SMS or e-mail. 80% of my friends installed Signal.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    My "graceful" fallback is similar to yours but Telegram --> Delta Chat (it's just email to them) --> Element (Matrix) --> Snikket (XMPP). Basically by the time they've gotten to the second step I already have a way of talking to them. I have maybe 1 or 2 people on Element and Snikket 0.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Signal’s leadership is well known for being hostile towards forks and alternative clients. It seeks to be a monopoly too. I think that’s the right call, as it maximizes user-friendliness, but if your overriding concern is monopolies then Signal is not the messaging system you should be advocating.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > it maximizes user-friendliness Unless the user wants to get their packages from F-Droid[0], or wants a chat client that doesn't come bundled with a crypto coin. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/fdroid/comments/q1jnbb/why_isnt_signal_at_fdroid/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fdroid/comments/q1jnbb/why_isnt_sig...
crossroadsguy 5y ago
Yes, as opposed to. At least in the sense that it’s available on almost every platform out there!

As opposed to the non-monopolistic practices of Facebook and their messengers?

by gnuj3 5y ago

As opposed to the non-monopolistic practices of Facebook and their messengers?

Tijdreiziger 5y ago

As much as I dislike Meta, at least they don't tie you to one specific brand of phone.

HWR_14 5y ago
On the other hand, Meta spies on you a hell of a lot more and then leases those results to others. And SMS is cross phone - even to feature phones
- dmz73 5y ago
  They all spy on all of us all the time, Apple is no different. Apple probably has more data on their users than any other company out there. So far there are no known instances of Apple selling this information, most likely because they believe they get better value by keeping the information for themselves. But they still spy on users and it is only one step from keeping all that data for themselves to selling it to boost profits or charging fees to keep it private.
  - krrrh 5y ago
    This… isn’t true, unless you think everything in here is a lie: https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/ If it were all lies there would be lawsuits from the FTC and EU regulators, and there simply isn’t. Because advertising is not a significant part of Apple’s business model, profiling users is a liability that they prefer to avoid. This does slow down the introduction of features. For instance Google images had usable face recognition for years before Apple because Google does it in the cloud. It happens on device for Apple, and it takes longer to scan photos for faces. A slightly worse experience, but worth it in many consumers eyes. But, I mean apple even does wacky stuff like creating unique ids for each trip you route on maps that isn’t tied to your user id, and fuzzes the precise location using differential privacy for product improvement. You can read all about it in the white papers at the link I provided above.
    - dmz73 5y ago
      I agree that Apple makes it very difficult for other entities to track you but Apple themselves can track you and nowhere in their privacy info does it say they they can't or don't. The devil is in the detail. For instance: "Apple does not maintain a comprehensive user data profile of your activity across all our products and services to serve you targeted advertising." A naive reading of that sentence would be that Apple does not keep data on users. But that is not what that sentence says - they just don't use that data for targeted advertising. And as we all know these policies are subject to change at any time so even targeted advertising might become the part of the agreement without users noticing or having any say in it.
      - krrrh 5y ago
        Again, read the white papers. The details go beyond either a naive or cynical reading of things that they highlight on the webpage that consumers are most interested in.
        dmz73 5y ago
        So $3T company that advertises privacy focus cannot unambiguously say on their web page about their privacy policy that they do not store data about users? Either they are incompetent in which case I don't really trust their attempt to protect my privacy or they are intentionally obtuse in which case I actually do trust that they know what they are doing and they store data on their users just like they say they do on they web page about privacy policy. Look, you can go ahead and trust them and that is fine. Just ask yourself what is the chance that Apple is the ONLY big tech company in the world that does not spy on its users.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        Apple does have a checkbox for "please learn things about me and serve me personalized ads" as well as another checkbox for "please send my analytics data back to you, I wanna share". Therefore they cannot categorically say they don't do it. But they certainly seem not to do it when those check boxes are off.
- crossroadsguy 5y ago
  And Apple doesn’t? I’d like to assume (because I literally have no way of finding otherwise) Apple spies on us more than other platforms. It’s so tightly locked down and locked in that most of the ways you control tracking on other platforms are either impossible or frustratingly hard and cumbersome on Apple devices, let alone services. Top that with most of those services being much inferior to competition without a doubt other than the polished looks (and even that’s doubtful).
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Strange assumption. Apple certainly make claims that they don't (which can result in nasty legal consequences if they are lung), provides access to the data they collect on you on phone, allow people to opt out data collection. And that's all public. It's possible they're lying. Maybe you know they are lying. But unless you do it seems like a weird assumption.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  Re: spying, ostensibly both WhatsApp and iMessage messages are E2E encrypted, so I don’t really see a huge difference here (it still leaves either company with valuable metadata, but at least it’s better than nothing). Re: SMS, isn’t this entire thread about how SMS isn’t seen as a viable (on par with iMessage) alternative?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    AFAIK, WhatsApp's client does a lot of tracking itself, it just observing the messages. I've also thought (esp. in the past) that WhatsApp claims if e2e didn't hold up irl. Meanwhile, yes this article is about how sms isn't a replacement. It's silly, because here and elsewhere people are saying the only place what the greentext nonsense exists is in articles like this.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

walrus01 5y ago

as opposed to something like a Signal group chat

gnuj3 5y ago
The only thing that stops you from having Signal group chat is you and people you talk to. When I deleted WhatsApp few years ago, I dropped a message to all my contacts informing them I'm moving to Signal and I included a link if they wanted to download it. Alternatively, I'm happy to still use iMessage/SMS or e-mail. 80% of my friends installed Signal.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  My "graceful" fallback is similar to yours but Telegram --> Delta Chat (it's just email to them) --> Element (Matrix) --> Snikket (XMPP). Basically by the time they've gotten to the second step I already have a way of talking to them. I have maybe 1 or 2 people on Element and Snikket 0.
ummonk 5y ago
Signal’s leadership is well known for being hostile towards forks and alternative clients. It seeks to be a monopoly too. I think that’s the right call, as it maximizes user-friendliness, but if your overriding concern is monopolies then Signal is not the messaging system you should be advocating.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > it maximizes user-friendliness Unless the user wants to get their packages from F-Droid[0], or wants a chat client that doesn't come bundled with a crypto coin. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/fdroid/comments/q1jnbb/why_isnt_signal_at_fdroid/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fdroid/comments/q1jnbb/why_isnt_sig...

crossroadsguy 5y ago

Yes, as opposed to. At least in the sense that it’s available on almost every platform out there!