5 ms·

I've removed all Meta apps other than Whatsapp (and I don't love that). I haven't had the Facebook app on my phone in well over a decade. Had Instagram for a wh

by brk 1y ago

I've removed all Meta apps other than Whatsapp (and I don't love that). I haven't had the Facebook app on my phone in well over a decade. Had Instagram for a while, I was casually active on it, but Meta just keeps convincing me not to be trusted. Facebook mobile is a suboptimal experience, which is fine, it just reminds me to use it less.

biinjo 1y ago
I was going to proudly boast that I don’t have any Meta apps on my phone. Got rid of FB a long time ago, never jumped on the Instagram train. Then I your post and now I realize I’m still in the Meta world. Forgot about whatsapp for a second.
- lazide 1y ago
  There is a reason they paid so much for it. In a lot of the world, they’re essentially required.
  - Contortion 1y ago
    And next to impossible to get rid of. I would much rather use Signal but convincing even privacy-conscious people to switch is an uphill battle.
    - mrbombastic 1y ago
      Signal is quite good these days for what it is worth. My whole family switched and hasn’t missed whatsapp. That said I am still stuck on whatsapp, it is basically the only messaging app people use in a lot of the world and used by a ton of businesses.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - reorder9695 1y ago
      I find a lot of people (including myself) had a pretty bad experience with Signal years ago, and it has put them off using it today.
    - tholdem 1y ago
      Maybe once the ads start showing on Whatsapp it gets easier to convince people to switch.
      - trinix912 1y ago
        There are ads on Viber and people aren’t convinced to switch to Whatsapp either.
      - touristtam 1y ago
        Convenience and habit will trump the annoyance of having to see adverts.
skylurk 1y ago
On iOS, whatsapp is weirdly pushy about getting unlimited access to your photo album. They also go out of their way to make it hard to save a photo without granting full access. Creepy.
- vladvasiliu 1y ago
  IME giving it "limited access" works well; you can save anything without issue. What pisses me off, though, is that I didn't find a way to give a contact a name without allowing it access to the phone's contacts.
  - skylurk 1y ago
    Tested it, and yes, when I increase the access from "Add Photos Only" to "Limited Access" I can add photos again. But now Whatsapp retains access to all the photos I added unless I go into settings and revoke access to those photos. Creepy. And yeah the contacts thing also pisses me off. They know what they are doing.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >But now Whatsapp retains access to all the photos I added unless I go into settings and revoke access to those photos. Creepy. Not really, given whatsapp could be theoretically keeping a local copy and the operating system can't really do anything about it. It would also be a pretty weird case to code. Imagine writing an app where if you tried to save a file, you couldn't immediately access it afterwards.
      - skylurk 1y ago
        > Imagine writing an app where if you tried to save a file, you couldn't immediately access it afterwards. It works fine in other apps such as Signal and even Teams. I don't really want Moxie or MSFT to have persistent access to any part of my personal photo album either, no matter how good they say they'll be.
    - vladvasiliu 1y ago
daedric7 1y ago
While I still have WA installed for unrelated reasons, I'm so happy for Matrix Bridges...
ratg13 1y ago
I gave up Samsung Galaxy entirely over this .. even ended up switching to iPhone because I couldn't find another Android I liked as much. Every Galaxy I ever owned came with uninstallable facebook apps, despite paying over 1k for the phone. On the last one I had, I went in and did the ritual deleting facebook, and going in the settings to disable their other background apps. I checked the phone 8 months later, and found that they had installed even more facebook apps that were now running without my consent. That was the end of those phones for me, and I'm amazed that I put up with it for so long.
- bonoboTP 1y ago
  > came with uninstallable facebook apps You mean ununinstallable.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    unremovable
rpgbr 1y ago
I treat WhatsApp as a hostile app[1], which means I deny any access to my stuff even if I get a subpar experience. In places where it's required (as where I live), this is the bare minimum a privacy-minded person can do. [1] https://manualdousuario.net/en/a-less-affectionate-approach-to-technology/ https://manualdousuario.net/en/a-less-affectionate-approach-...
- WA 1y ago
  Yeah but other people share their contact list with WhatsApp and they have you in there, with your name and phone number and possibly more info. I never understood why Apple allows access to the full address book including all Apple-specific settings such as "spouse" and "home address" that are useful within iOS. There should be a minimal permission mode: name and phone number only.
BLKNSLVR 1y ago
I only have WhatsApp for communication in a club committee I'm on. I have a whole separate Android profile to maximise it's separation from anything and everything else.
ethagnawl 1y ago
I just got a new phone and have been using WhatsApp via browser. It's a fight (e.g. you have to force desktop layout) and clearly something they'd prefer you didn't do but ... it's usable. Common actions like sharing photos, replying/reacting to a message, etc. all require multiple taps and futzing with the zoom level but they are possible. There are a few actions, like viewing one-time photos which are not available and the biggest problem is that you're still tethered to a device running a fully fledged version of the app. When your session expires, you're required to authenticate again by scanning a code generated by the native app. Thankfully, my old phone is still functional and this is one of the reasons I'm keeping it around. I'm considering it tainted by Meta and, since I won't be taking new photos or doing anything substantive with it, I guess that's fine.
- abdullahkhalids 1y ago
  I have thought about it. I wonder if some smart person can figure out how to manipulate the CSS of the browser version so its easily usable on phones.

by brk 1y ago

biinjo 1y ago

I was going to proudly boast that I don’t have any Meta apps on my phone. Got rid of FB a long time ago, never jumped on the Instagram train. Then I your post and now I realize I’m still in the Meta world. Forgot about whatsapp for a second.

lazide 1y ago
There is a reason they paid so much for it. In a lot of the world, they’re essentially required.
- Contortion 1y ago
  And next to impossible to get rid of. I would much rather use Signal but convincing even privacy-conscious people to switch is an uphill battle.
  - mrbombastic 1y ago
    Signal is quite good these days for what it is worth. My whole family switched and hasn’t missed whatsapp. That said I am still stuck on whatsapp, it is basically the only messaging app people use in a lot of the world and used by a ton of businesses.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - reorder9695 1y ago
    I find a lot of people (including myself) had a pretty bad experience with Signal years ago, and it has put them off using it today.
  - tholdem 1y ago
    Maybe once the ads start showing on Whatsapp it gets easier to convince people to switch.
    - trinix912 1y ago
      There are ads on Viber and people aren’t convinced to switch to Whatsapp either.
    - touristtam 1y ago
      Convenience and habit will trump the annoyance of having to see adverts.

skylurk 1y ago

On iOS, whatsapp is weirdly pushy about getting unlimited access to your photo album. They also go out of their way to make it hard to save a photo without granting full access. Creepy.

vladvasiliu 1y ago
IME giving it "limited access" works well; you can save anything without issue. What pisses me off, though, is that I didn't find a way to give a contact a name without allowing it access to the phone's contacts.
- skylurk 1y ago
  Tested it, and yes, when I increase the access from "Add Photos Only" to "Limited Access" I can add photos again. But now Whatsapp retains access to all the photos I added unless I go into settings and revoke access to those photos. Creepy. And yeah the contacts thing also pisses me off. They know what they are doing.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >But now Whatsapp retains access to all the photos I added unless I go into settings and revoke access to those photos. Creepy. Not really, given whatsapp could be theoretically keeping a local copy and the operating system can't really do anything about it. It would also be a pretty weird case to code. Imagine writing an app where if you tried to save a file, you couldn't immediately access it afterwards.
    - skylurk 1y ago
      > Imagine writing an app where if you tried to save a file, you couldn't immediately access it afterwards. It works fine in other apps such as Signal and even Teams. I don't really want Moxie or MSFT to have persistent access to any part of my personal photo album either, no matter how good they say they'll be.
  - vladvasiliu 1y ago

daedric7 1y ago

While I still have WA installed for unrelated reasons, I'm so happy for Matrix Bridges...

ratg13 1y ago

I gave up Samsung Galaxy entirely over this .. even ended up switching to iPhone because I couldn't find another Android I liked as much. Every Galaxy I ever owned came with uninstallable facebook apps, despite paying over 1k for the phone. On the last one I had, I went in and did the ritual deleting facebook, and going in the settings to disable their other background apps. I checked the phone 8 months later, and found that they had installed even more facebook apps that were now running without my consent. That was the end of those phones for me, and I'm amazed that I put up with it for so long.

bonoboTP 1y ago
> came with uninstallable facebook apps You mean ununinstallable.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  unremovable

rpgbr 1y ago

I treat WhatsApp as a hostile app[1], which means I deny any access to my stuff even if I get a subpar experience. In places where it's required (as where I live), this is the bare minimum a privacy-minded person can do. [1] https://manualdousuario.net/en/a-less-affectionate-approach-to-technology/ https://manualdousuario.net/en/a-less-affectionate-approach-...

WA 1y ago
Yeah but other people share their contact list with WhatsApp and they have you in there, with your name and phone number and possibly more info. I never understood why Apple allows access to the full address book including all Apple-specific settings such as "spouse" and "home address" that are useful within iOS. There should be a minimal permission mode: name and phone number only.

BLKNSLVR 1y ago

I only have WhatsApp for communication in a club committee I'm on. I have a whole separate Android profile to maximise it's separation from anything and everything else.

ethagnawl 1y ago

I just got a new phone and have been using WhatsApp via browser. It's a fight (e.g. you have to force desktop layout) and clearly something they'd prefer you didn't do but ... it's usable. Common actions like sharing photos, replying/reacting to a message, etc. all require multiple taps and futzing with the zoom level but they are possible. There are a few actions, like viewing one-time photos which are not available and the biggest problem is that you're still tethered to a device running a fully fledged version of the app. When your session expires, you're required to authenticate again by scanning a code generated by the native app. Thankfully, my old phone is still functional and this is one of the reasons I'm keeping it around. I'm considering it tainted by Meta and, since I won't be taking new photos or doing anything substantive with it, I guess that's fine.

abdullahkhalids 1y ago
I have thought about it. I wonder if some smart person can figure out how to manipulate the CSS of the browser version so its easily usable on phones.