Not sure I quite understand the argument against Facebook here, though I might just be missing something.
The market for messaging apps is pretty saturated with competitors at the moment; if I didn't like their WhatsApp and Facebook accounts merging, for example, I could just bounce to iMessage / Kik / Snap / Telegram.
Whether or not you agree / disagree with the security & user experience argument from FB (I personally can see both sides,) the low switching costs will always mean the user has quite a bit of power here.
"The users can just switch" doesn't actually work when the switching costs are high, and the switching costs for a social network are a lot higher than you are making it seem.
If all of my friends are using WhatsApp, either I have to use it too or I have to convince everyone to switch to my preferred app just for my sake. And in the case of iMessage, I have to ask them to switch their phone too.
If these systems could interoperate with each other it'd be different, but as-is, the switching costs are astronomical.
The benefit of iMessage is the encryption. Which SMS doesnt compare to that level of encryption used by Apple. Would rather iMessage be a paid for Android app. I woulda bought it but I might just switch phones altogether. Sick of Googles spying and political regime insanity (see Project Veritas).
> if I didn't like their WhatsApp and Facebook accounts merging, for example, I could just bounce to iMessage / Kik / Snap / Telegram.
> low switching costs
Messaging services do not have low switching costs, for the same reason that Facebook itself does not have a low switching cost. People use the service that has their friends on it.
Switching costs are not low whatsoever. Good luck getting everyone you know to use a new platform for you. Further, I don't think you've supported "saturated" as a claim here.
Over the last 2 months, I've noticed Facebook has almost completely stopped responding to any vulnerability finds or bug bounty tickets submitted. It's gotten really bad.
For instance, right now all 70,000,000 of the Facebook users in Vietnam have their information posted online on an open web server. I am not going to post it just yet in the last hope that someone from FB will reach out to me, but the info is their along with their IMEI number, cell phone number, information on what ads they've seen and clicked on, etc. For some users there are absolutely private messages, it appears to be only for Muslims in Vietnam though (so not all nor am I saying all).
Until yesterday, the S3 bucket https://whatsapp-messages.s3.amazonaws.com was open. You can search CNAME records if you have a SecurityTrails subscription, and this bucket belongs to a certain FB contractor. In fairness it could have been something known as "Domain Shadowing" whereby you secretly hack a groups subdomain records for evading firewall purposes, but in that case the argument still stands.
It had over 13,000 pictures from various Latin American police departments that change every few days while I tracked it.
NOTE: FB Security ppl, my email is in my profile.
EDIT: This is a very good paper from Tsinghua University in 2016 on Domain Shadowing, which more people should be aware of. Check your subdomains, and make sure you use the free option in SecurityTrails to do it. Passive DNS checks aren't enough here: https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/zhouli/files/2018/09/ccs17.pdf
I'm sorry, rshnotsecure but until you come up with those 5k words you promised about ProtonMail, CreditKarma and a huge list of others being fronts for spy agencies[1] your posts will only ever be titillating scuttlebutt for me.
Last we heard you had the lounge room covered in butcher's paper, plotting it all out and gave your literal word that you'd post that "report" within 96 hours. That was 42 days ago.
I have no idea if what you say about FB's server in Vietnam is true and I'm not here to argue with you. The pity is that you post about interesting things.
But if making big claims with unshakeable evidence "to come" which never actually arrives is something that we deplore in our politicians and mainstream media, why let it creep in here?
This is the indice you are looking for. 71,000,000 records.
yellow open fb_vietnam ChkUhOlHQpO_RozynrZdXA 1 1 71839979 11829285 10.1gb 10.1gb
You are right on the 96 hours vs 42 days thing though. It's a lot of work man. No one has volunteered to help. There are a ton of ASNs what can I say lol. I will post about CreditKarma today. Not ProtonMail.
Type in "openvpn.creditkarma.com" to Spyse.com please. What do you see? It says it points to a server in Tunisia right? And that server has 10,000 other host names on it almost all from...hnagroup.com? China's really really big private conglomerate correct?
Anyway again you are right, but I'm tired, I posted the Vietnam server (at least enough data to confirm amounts although we can debate purpose of cluster which is fascinating).
EDIT: Damn it I just realized your account was created new a few hours ago. Can't you use your real name like I do? Maybe email me?
NOTE: To your credit I finally posted. Like 1250 words but we'll get there. My wife wants me to move the butcher paper after all :) https://blog.12security.com/
I'm not looking for any indices. This is another classic fake news ploy - piling one outrageous claim on top of another without ever actually substantiating anything.
> Can't you use your real name like I do? Maybe email me?
Why? I don't want to chat. I want you to back up your claims the way you made them - publicly.
> I finally posted. Like 1250 words.
832 to be precise, and a whole bunch of those making even bigger assertions with even less proof offered. And a whole lot of stuff "tbd"
You should triple down and write another angry response. Other than this one which is a little snarky (I apologize but it had to be) I promise I will respond to that one as nicely and patiently as I have the others.
In my opinion, the ship has already sailed for the FTC to have any say in how Facebook interoperates its own applications. If they were truly concerned about a monopoly on social media, the sale of those apps should have been blocked in the first place.
What is the point of telling Facebook not to make their apps interact with each other? Are they thinking Facebook employees can't see the databases of their other apps? Is the FTC going to pretend they know anything about how the databases are supposed to operate? What about one big database with an App field; would they know if Facebook did that? What about multiple databases on the same server; is that an antitrust violation?
The entire rationale for looking at Facebook now just seems like going after an easy target. Either evaluate the antitrust arguments on their own merit and break those apps off Facebook, or leave it alone.
The timing of some of this feels disingenuous... it wasn’t that long ago Facebook completed their graph API migration... functionally their is not a “platform separation” any more their are just different labels on Facebook APIs this change is now heavily reflected in dev tools... Facebook will simply argue that any disentanglement would have high impact to business and move on with their day. The people who work for the government and do this stuff know enough about how platforms work to know that the time to do this was over a year ago before this huge shift was locked in.
If it got to that and it's not some sort of WSJ attempt to advocate for this sort of thing, facebook must fight it tooth and nail, and stop these attempts at governmental micromanagement once and for all.
It's suspect that they are going after tech companies which are national treasures but are enemies to corporate media, it's strange that this sort of action isn't being considered against actual malicious monopolists that the press isn't constantly attacking. No one is suggesting going after disney for instance even though they have that market cornered.
Entertainment. I guarantee anybody in your average household is a fan of something Disney outright bought the rights to. Whether its Marvel (if I hear about another reboot of X-Men or another Avengers movie imma pull my hair, OTOH I did like Guardians... Yikes even I am falling for it!) then theres Star Wars which has a huge following of people from all ages. The typical Disney public domain rip offs as well. The insane amount of music they own the rights to.
Here in Florida its scary how much power Disney has. They also own the media to a point and you find it hard to see anybody speak badly of them within the media. The amount of things I see covered up that never winds up in the media genuinely scares me. How is it possible the media keeps specific things quiet for Disney.
There are still five major movie studios in the US and the minor studios like Blumhouse and Tyler Perry Studios routinely put out movies that have a higher ROI than the major ones.
As far as TV, there are plenty of TV studios and streaming services.
And now they're removing their content from those. They also own several of those streaming services (ESPN, D+, and significant enough parts of Hulu). By contrast their streaming competitors own one single serve (with maybe the exception of Google and Apple who own music streaming services and video streaming).
If nobody sets up a roadblock I fear where it ends, if it does.
I forgot to add a disclaimer: long before I was a developer I worked for Disney. I'm somewhat biased, but I also attempt to not be blind. It's a monopoly on your children to a significant scale. If they stop buying out companies, it still feels like they've bought out some of the more major fandom franchises.
I just went to check, and after their last major buyout they own all of the Narnia movie rights.
If you replace “civil rights and democracy” with “arbitrary power” (and, as far as what both those cheering and those complaining mostly said, “Facebook” with “Twitter”), sure.
Facebook has been doing everything in their power to gradually erode people's privacy, so their business model is strongly consumer-hostile, unless contributing to the erosion of civil liberties and human rights isn't considered hostile towards people.
Disney's attack on culture through the lobbying of copyright extensions is not an excuse for what Facebook is doing. Both companies need to be dealt with, and we can do our part by not defending them when there's an opportunity to call them out.
> Disney's attack on culture through the lobbying of copyright extensions
Nitpick: that should be "a copyright extension", not "copyright extensions". There have only been two copyright extensions that have affected Disney: the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
I haven't been able to find any evidence that they lobbied for the 1976 Act. Probably because there would have been no need for lobbying, as the 1976 Act had near universal support.
That's because it was a major overhaul of US copyright law, which went a long way toward making US copyright law compatible with the Berne Convention. (There was still a lot to do to actually allow the US to join the Berne Convention--those final changes were in the Berne Implementation Act of 1988).
I'm not sure how the popular notion that Disney is constantly getting copyright terms extended arose.
> I'm not sure how the popular notion that Disney is constantly getting copyright terms extended arose.
They've earned this reputation by lobbying successfully for copyright extensions more than any other company in history. They absolutely deserve harsh criticism for it.
> They've earned this reputation by lobbying successfully for copyright extensions more than any other company in history
As far as I can tell, they've lobbied once for a copyright extension (the 1998 Act).
Their copyright was also extended by the 1976 Act, but as previously noted, I can't find anything suggesting that they had any influence over that. The 1976 Act was the result of a revision effort that was started by Congress in 1955 to address the widely perceived problems of the 1909 Act. That effort included 35 separate studies into the problems with the 1909 Act.
That took about 5 or 6 years. Then there were 15 years of negotiation and compromise and drafting involving pretty much all interested parties. As far as I've been able to find, the only thing in the result of that which did not have widespread was the provisions involving cable television. Those stayed controversial all the way.
The narrative that Disney and/or other big corporate interests somehow pushed the 1976 Act through is just not at all supported by the historical record.
I have to admit, I am struggling to find facts to back up my argument. I could go on a tangent about trademark, and while it's related it doesn't defend my original point.
I suspect Disney had a huge role to play in lobbying for these laws, but thank you for pointing out that I actually have almost no facts to back up this claim (seriously, I love being proven wrong because it means I learned something).
you have no privacy, it is an illusion. your civil liberties are already stomped flat by government yet people want to hand them even more authority and control over their lives.
get the priorities straight, government is first and foremost the issue when it comes to privacy and civil liberties. corporations are beholden to what politicians threaten them with in lieu of campaign donations and favors so take offense and aim at the right group.
it isn't corporations doing their best to end privacy in communications and once that is gone through encryption back doors and bans nothing else much matters.
put it this way, the politicians and their sycophants sure have done their job in getting people to look behind the wrong curtain. give them more power they say, trust them they say, fbi I say, nsa I say..
Facebook isn’t eroding people’s privacy. People knowingly share information with FB. On the other hand, how many people know about all of the information that Google collects - especially on Android phones?
The market for messaging apps is pretty saturated with competitors at the moment; if I didn't like their WhatsApp and Facebook accounts merging, for example, I could just bounce to iMessage / Kik / Snap / Telegram.
Whether or not you agree / disagree with the security & user experience argument from FB (I personally can see both sides,) the low switching costs will always mean the user has quite a bit of power here.