And here's the Facebook response from that same article that you neglected to include:

"NSO is trying to distract from the facts Facebook and WhatsApp filed in court over six months ago. Their attempt to avoid responsibility includes inaccurate representations about both their spyware and a discussion with people who work at Facebook. Our lawsuit describes how NSO is responsible for attacking over 100 human rights activists and journalists around the world. NSO CEO Shalev Hulio has admitted his company can attack devices without a user knowing and he can see who has been targeted with Pegasus. We look forward to proving our case against NSO in court and seeking accountability for their actions," the statement from a Facebook spokesperson read.

2 notes about the parent. 1) The parent is written by an employee at Facebook and 2) it does not deny the claim instead redirecting the readers attention.

None of this makes the original claim true or false. I'll be curious to see what comes to light around that. I just like to notice these subtle things.

I work for neither, and the claim itself is vague, as it lacks any technical facts.

"purported capabilities to monitor users" can mean anything from full on CIA spy-mode with pema-enabling audio and video and 24/7 recording to logging their IP address when they visit a website.

Why should Facebook be doing any of that?

Even the best case outcome is negative here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo#Facebook_Research this should provide some background; this is the software referenced in TFA. Facebook bought a massively popular VPN service specifically to monitor their users' web traffic and app usage.

If all the users data was going through the VPN, Facebook defacto knows what the user is doing on the web making that suggestion moot. It's the on device activity they want.

Yup, and they wanted to shove nation-state malware in to Onavo to do it, it sounds like!

All I see is two snakes (FB, NSO) are fighting on which one will eat the little white mouse (our privacy). I did the article because there is always some thing to learn even in the gutter.

Sure, have any opinion you want as long as you base it on facts, and respect others who don't agree with you.

None of this seems to refute OP's comment.

"NSO is trying to distract from the facts [a whole lot of irrelevant content]."

> "NSO is trying to distract

This seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/04/03/facebook-tried-to.... Thanks!

"Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html