Comment by dfajgljsldkjag
13 hours ago
It's better than nothing. If you have a different app and want to talk to your friend who uses whatsapp it's much easier to convince him to toggle a setting than to download a different app.
13 hours ago
It's better than nothing. If you have a different app and want to talk to your friend who uses whatsapp it's much easier to convince him to toggle a setting than to download a different app.
[flagged]
It's because the real solution here is to move away from this proprietary malware to protocols that are open, so that anyone can write or fork a client. (For instance, see Molly for a fully Ungoogled Signal.)
It's difficult when it comes to messengers, but reasonably easy when it comes to Google and Android, for which good alternatives exist (e.g., DuckDuck on GrapheneOS.)
> Or worse - you have a nice trademark for your business or product, and google managed to turn 91% of "URL bars" through "web standards" and unilateral control / anti-competitive practices, turn these into "Google search". You type in Anthropic and instead of seeing their homepage, you see ads for ChatGPT. 50% of Google's revenue is trademark taxation.
This is preposterous. You'd see ads for Gemini, not ChatGPT.
That depends which group is offering more money today. Gemini is integrated into the search and comes before any results so it might not need any ads.
> This is fucking malicious compliance. Meta knows what they're doing.
And so do the courts. Give them some time to cook. How goes the popular American saying: We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way.
> Give them some time to cook
How long? I'm still waiting for the GDPR to actually be enforced meaningfully.
6 replies →
How long?
Lina Khan didn't move fast enough, then she was shown the door.
Maybe the EU will persist where the US FTC/DOJ could not?
Nah it’s privacy. Gotta get consent from users. Cookies, GDPR, and all. Meta has learned from their fines, and isn’t opting users automatically into features.
> This is fucking malicious compliance. Meta knows what they're doing.
Wait, you mean passing feel-good legislation has knock-on effects? Who would have thought?
It's not a case of "feel-good legislation", but yeah, this reaction was to be expected. Meta and most other SaaS companies are user-hostile on purpose, not by accident, so it's predictable they'll try to fight it.
1 reply →
That is not the case here. The legislation has been drafted with all of this in mind, and will force Meta to continually improve until the feature is like it should be.
Without Trump making a huge fuss everytime US companies have to do something that can hurt their monopolies, we'd probably already be there