4 ms·
You could literally talk about beyblade toys on a whatsapp video call and you'll be getting Amazon ads for dem blades the next day.
by SecretDreams 2y ago
You could literally talk about beyblade toys on a whatsapp video call and you'll be getting Amazon ads for dem blades the next day.
- sitkack 2y agoWhatsApp is secured by Signal encryption
- kelnos 2y agoWhatsApp is a closed-source client that you cannot trust to faithfully and correctly implement the protocol, or be free of backdoors that allow Meta to snoop on your conversations.
- rs186 2y agoAt least according to Meta's marketing, WhatsApp is E2E encrypted. And they make ads just for this -- you can literally see billboards in NYC that advertises the encrypted messaging part of the product. It would completely destroy WhatsApp and Meta's brand if there is a backdoor somewhere. Well, Meta is never a great company to begin with, but nobody would ever lie about it and destroy their brand this way. And I truly believe Meta has an incentive to do so. They had to reveal a conversation on Facebook Messenger on the topic of abortion after the police asked for it, which resulted in someone put in jail. Regardless of Meta's (or rather Zuck's) ever changing political position, they don't want to have liability over anything like this. They want to walk away and just say to the cops, look it's all encrypted, there's nothing we can share with you. Better keep conspiracy theories to yourself. It's ok to question things, but better back that up with evidence.
- awnird 2y agoMark Zuckerberg famously had a term for people like you who trusted him.
- rs186 2y agoIn case this is not clear enough: you'd better come up with some real arguments with concrete evidence, or move on. Nobody has time for meaningless speculation.
- SecretDreams 2y agoThis is a rare example where I actually think Meta should be providing the evidence, and not the other way around. When you have a history of doing greasy shit, you don't get the benefit of the doubt.
- saagarjha 2y agoWhat evidence would be convincing?
- SecretDreams 2y agoHow about a breakdown on the exact ways WhatsApp makes them money and how the justified value of $20 bil when meta purchased it made sense?
- SecretDreams 2y agoThat's nice. I'll remember that next time I talk about beyblades to a friend in WhatsApp and see adds for them on Reddit the next day.
- Marsymars 2y agoThe truth is even worse; reddit has enough of a profile built on you that they can predict your penchant for beyblades without even needing your whatsapp chats.
- SecretDreams 2y agoGasp! Even if I am only talking about the Beyblades on WhatsApp?
- gruez 2y agoThere's basically no credible evidence of this happening. All there is are vague anecdotes which are easily explained with confirmation bias and/or the birthday paradox.
- SecretDreams 2y agoHow much did Zuckerberg pay for WhatsApp again?
- gruez 2y agoIf the argument is that there's no credible evidence, retorting with a vague question doesn't really help your case. If anything it reinforces the original claim that there's no credible evidence.
- SecretDreams 2y agoIf Ruppert Murdoch bought an independent news agency, would you expect the agency to remain unbiased in their reporting?
- gruez 2y agoBeing "biased" isn't remotely close to outright lying. Despite all the exasperation about Fox News being "fake news" or whatever, they very rarely outright lie. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies
- SecretDreams 2y agoThis is how you're playing this argument out??
- samplatt 2y agoWeird hill to die on, man. Like, sure credible evidence is one of the most important things in the world... but what, are you honestly saying that you're going to be surprised if WhatsApp turned out to be leaking data? We don't need the pitchforks just yet, sure, but shit, you have to remain realistic about these things.