Can you tell me in words the value (V1) or values that you're filtering for with this life choice? And whether there are other values (Vall) that you hold and would like your friends to hold. And talk to me about the correlation between V1 and Vall.

Because my opinion is that my friends willingness (or preference) to use a non secure messaging app owned by a giant tech corp has very very very low correlation with whether I'd like them to be a friend.

I agree with this completely.

I'd also point out that this is exactly how bubbles occur. "Everyone I know hates WhatsApp/Facebook/whatever" says the person who refuses to communicate via those platforms.

> I'd also point out that this is exactly how bubbles occur

No it isn't. You'd be surprised in the variety of people that you meet when you don't use algorithmic systems to do so. Just because you only maintain relationships with people who are not so glued to WhatsApp that they won't communicate through any other means, does not mean you have created a bubble for yourself.

So do you just call random phone numbers or something?

They might walk somewhere and talk to some of the people they see on the way.

They might do something when they get there and talk to people who are doing the same thing (or who just happen to be there).

People who use WhatsApp also go places, do things and talk to people. They don't sit at home alone in their room on WhatsApp 24/7. That's what Hacker News is for.

Then guess what? You might not find yourself in a bubble if you stop using WhatsApp. Which... is exactly what I said before.

> People who use WhatsApp also go places, do things and talk to people.

I'm sure that is true. I was suggesting alternative ideas to calling random phone numbers as a means of getting out of one's "bubble".

i use whatsapp to call my grandma and my aunt among other people, because that's what they use. Actually, my parents too, now that i think about it. How in tf is that an "algorithmic people-meeting system"??? did it pick a grandma for me according to some algorithm?

> think about it, they fall back to whatsapp all the time. How in tf is that an "algorithmic people-meeting system"???

It isn't. Nor did I say it was. The person I replied to said that not using WhatsApp is how social bubbles are formed. It isn't. That's what I was refuting.

Actually it is.

It's true you are always able to avoid bubbles, and nothing I say precludes that ability.

However, information bubbles are a function of friction and defaults. If communication lessens with a people who don't share a particular view (ie, that Whatsapp has to be avoided) then that friction lessens exposure to that viewpoint, forming a bubble.

> you meet when you don't use algorithmic systems to do so.

AFAIK there is no algorithmic system on Whatsapp to meet people.

I think it’s a negative correlation. I’m fairly likely to like people that realize a FB monopoly on communication isn’t a good thing.

Or you just exclude all non-ideologues and most non-techies that don't give a crap.

Which I guess is a useful filter if you want to be surrounded by techies and ideologues.

Most non-techies don't give a crap indeed. Maybe these people haven't traveled much at all. When you are in the middle of a non-US city, you're trying to get the keys to your stay and the night is falling, you fire up that one messenger you're not supposed to use because zuck bad, and figure out the key situation in 1 second. Then you lecture your newfound "whatsapp bubble friend" who brought you the keys about how low and unethical it is of them to use whatsapp.

This is a useful thing to consider when using social media or, say, dating apps in general, come to think of it.

Like you, the choice of messaging app is quite beside the point (except FB Messenger being out of the question for reasons I'll explain). So, I still use a combination of WhatsApp, Signal and Skype.

If a friendship depended on me having a Twitter/FB/TikTok/Instagram profile though, I'm more likely to let that fade away. Similarly with dating: it'd be a dealbreaker to have to maintain a social media presence or find someone solely through Tinder or Bumble or whatever. I enjoy life more without social media in it, and without tech companies gatekeeping human connection through a mobile app. Some things just have to stay offline for the sake of me and my mental health.

Wow, and this is despite the fact that WhatsApp is end to end encrypted and not monetized?

- They don't need your contact list to still build your contact graph.

- They still collect things like your location, your call history, etc. In Brazil it's quite common for people to use WhatsApp to call their doctors. This means that Facebook can know what type of health issues you have just by checking if you are calling/texting a specialist.

- They are still owned by Facebook and they take whatever data they can to feed the Borg.

- I can not prove it, but I am convinced that they scan the video stream in the device.

> I can not prove it, but I am convinced that they scan the video stream in the device.

You can't prove it, alright. But do you mind sharing why you are convinced they scan the video stream?

In a public forum, I do mind it. Sorry.

It's nothing really embarrassing or wrong, but I worry that it might be taken out of context.

Ok. that's fair. thanks for taking the time to respond. appreciate it.

Why wouldn't you assume they do? Sorry if that sounds argumentative, it's not my intent. As I understand it, their software processes everything you send to/through them. (And it's easy to imagine reasons why they would be interested in doing so)

Taking your first three points as true, the trade is you get free global multi-way instant messaging, including pictures and video/audio clips, and video calling, for no cost other than minimal data costs.

Lots of people are currently willing to make that trade, at least until a competitor comes along that offers something better.

The fact that lots of people are willing to make that trade does not make it good or ethical.

> at least until a competitor comes along that offers something better.

Next year, the EU is going to force all messenger platforms to interoperate. Then we will be able to really compare.

Love to know how e2ee will work with this!

I recently started using WhatsApp regularly because it's the only convenient end-to-end encrypted messaging app I know. The only thing they seem to be getting out of it is some metadata and the opportunity to sell services to busisnesses. Seems like an acceptable compromise to me.

Previously I used Matrix/Element but never got it to work reliably with my friends (decryption issues, session verification obsession). And Signal has no web app. So WhatsApp it is for now.

It is an extraordinary expectation that a piece of software under that ownership will not collect data.

It's also an extraordinary expectation that your friends will use the messaging system you dictate.

If I tell a friend "I am not going to use WhatsApp. But you can call me, email me, text me, use Signal, use Matrix, knock on my door..." and this friend refuses to keep in touch, who is the one "dictating" the messaging system?

You.

If 20 of your friend's are using Whatsapp to communicate just fine, and you demand they change their mode of communication to suit your needs.

I'm starting to see why the trope of techies are anti social is so prevalent. Some of you really are absolutely socially inept.

I'm not asking them to change their mode of communication with others. I'm just saying that I'm not going to join something that I believe to be harmful out of peer pressure.

> Some of you really are absolutely socially inept.

So if someone tells you "I'm sorry, I am not available at this channel, can we arrange some other method?" and you refuse to accomodate you take the other as socially inept?

It seems like you are projecting. Hard.

This is madness, I will say it explicitly, spelt-out.

There exist systems which may violate your privacy, and you think that a possible demand to use them from any third party would be "fair", aproblematic?!

Good normalcy is that if some acquaintance put as a condition any controversial constraint, such as destructive behaviour ("binge drinking" etc.), irresponsible behaviour, degrading behaviour (that spyware is part of this latter) - the reply is simply "No".

And that would be antisocial behaviour, "No, I will not get tattooed (etc.) just because you would like that"?!

Children have replaced Men in this world.

Edit: oh, and by the way: behaviour that would stick to the framework of proper Society would be «[anti-]social»?!?!?! That is a dire reversal terms, and it shows the (satanic) perversity these """societies""" have reached.

That sort of depends on your threat model. Are you making some ideological stand, or are you protecting yourself from harassment by the authorities?

It's not so weird to expect that your friends will acquiesce to your demand that they wear a seatbelt in your car, for instance.

you are an extraordinary man

Your friends dictate, many times subconsciously, much more important things that you do such as the clothes you wear or where you go on holiday.

But hey, I draw a line in the sand at the instant messenger! :-)))

> more important things

And your reply remains "No", right?

I have no control over what they do. If they’re so attached to using whatsapp that they’d stop being friends with me rather than use signal, the friendship wasn’t worth a lot in the first place.

I hope you do not have the expectation that in order to contact """friends""" one would ever adopt bestial behaviour. It takes a beast to act like a beast. Everybody will live according to nature.

Your post seems to be assumptions loaded. It sounds as if you were accusing strawmen of expecting people to behave rationally, wisely etc. That image has been superseded even in the theoretical grounds in which it had been used historically as a premise (e.g. Economics).

I’d be interested to know what, if anything, Meta does with WhatsApp metadata.

I'd be interested to know too, the social graphs they can build must be mesmerizing to browse through.

How does Meta make money? That is your answer.

We can suppose endlessly and make all the assumptions we want. I am more interested in facts.

Here’s a fact: Meta grossed $117 billion in 2022. Almost as much as a major car manufacturer. They’re doing things with that data. It’s a scary amount of power.

Hence my curiosity regarding the specifics.

I want friends with a diverse set of viewpoints and values, within a pretty broad window.