Murdoch is a symptom of that illness, not its root cause. The root cause is the Deep State (aka the “ruling class” if you’re not a fan of the term) for whom it is more convenient to have people bicker about bullshit issues that do not impact them instead of asking why real earnings have been flat for the last few decades while cost of shelter, education and healthcare has gone exponential. If not Murdoch it’d be someone else. Zuck and Pichai have absolutely zero scruples wrt promoting hyperpolarization on their platforms - anger drives engagement and clicks.
"African (predominantly South Sudanese) youth comprise at least 19 per cent of young people in custody despite being less than 0.5 per cent of Victoria's youth population."
Their track record is excellent. Pavel moved away from Russia (and his team of 20 something members too!) only because the Russian government pressured them into giving access to their servers.
WhatsApp is anything but privacy preserving. You have 0 transparency. You can't even prove if the E2EE exists for 100% of the time or just 50% of the time because the binaries are obfuscated. On top of that, their privacy policy and being owned by Facebook says everything one needs to know.
Telegram, IMHO, is the only app that does not compromise on user experience and still provides fantastic privacy control and respects the user data. Sure, it's not E2EE, but no E2EE app can ever do what Telegram is doing at this scale.
I get where you're coming from but Telegram is objectively better than WhatsApp due to several reasons:
- Privacy controls for each user.
- No hard requirement for a phone number.
- Cloud encryption.
- Open Source clients.
- Telegram's track record.
- Business model not revolving around selling user data.
WhatsApp is a black box and nobody has any good arguments for it other than 'supposed' E2EE that nobody knows anything about. The fact that WhatsApp's T&C forbid you from even reverse engineering the obfuscated binaries and Facebook being the force behind WhatsApp, I'm still surprised that people take their E2EE claim seriously.
It's like me promising you that I'm not looking at you, while I stand facing you, right behind you.
> With Telegram you have a guarantee that it is not E2EE in group chats and single chats if you don't opt into a way worse UX/features.
You're saying this as if you have a guarantee that WhatsApp's E2EE is 100% correct. At least with Telegram, I know what data the app is collecting, where it's going and how it's being stored on the device.
> True for Whatsapp as well, it's funded by business accounts and perhaps other parts of facebook
> I'm sorry, but that's not a good example. It doesn't even count as a legitimate client.
why not?
After all the client uses the multi-device API like the official client does
> You're saying this as if you have a guarantee that WhatsApp's E2EE is 100% correct.
I am not saying it like that. I am explicitly saying that with Telegram you have the guarantee that it is not E2EE, while there at least exist the possibility of WhatsApp being E2EE.
I do wonder about that: moving from WhatsApp to Telegram appears to be a case of moving from the frying pan into the fire. To Signal seems somewhere more reasonable.
I would say from the frying pan into the kitchen bench. It's not perfect but it's not yet being cooked.
Telegram is a good compromise. Yeah it's not e2ee.
Signal isn't even a good compromise for most people. I don't know anyone who has stuck with signal in my circles. They've nearly all reverted back their previous service or find a new one.
Personally I treat everything that is sent over networks as public data. So I would never comm anything that needed e2ee via a message service full stop.
I don't think Signal has what it takes to combat Facebook's monopoly. It's more inconvenient than WhatsApp, why would people even switch?
Telegram on the other hand does not compromise on features and user experience and still is able to deliver a system that doesn't disrespect the user data.
I perhaps don't know what I'm missing with WhatsApp, but I use Signal with Android-owning friends (iMessage for everyone else), and no-one has voiced displeasure - indeed it was _suggested_ by many of them, both technical and non-technical as preferable to SMS, so I don't think it can be that bad.
I don't have special insight into either WhatsApp or Telegram, but I think given the founders and jurisdictions in which they operate, Telegram deserves at least the same level of scepticism and scrutiny as TikTok.
I don't think Telegram deserves scrutiny. Not after what they've been able to accomplish and follow.
> indeed it was _suggested_ by many of them, both technical and non-technical as preferable to SMS, so I don't think it can be that bad.
It's not bad of course, but it's extremely hard to get WhatsApp users to switch to Signal than Telegram. Both because of missing WhatsApp features in Signal and the additional hoops like PIN.
I'm Just speaking from personal experience. Signal was also my first choice.
It is amazing how many people think they know better than the guy whose company did $120 billion in revenue last year. Maybe Zuck has more business sense than some rando writing for the Atlantic?
Imo paid verification will absolutely make sense to the tens of millions of brands that advertise on Meta's platforms.
"Nobody seriously thinks that Facebook or Twitter will rake in anything remotely comparable" (to the billions made by airline fees)
SnapChat already has 2 million paid subscribers. Between FB and Insta, Meta has > 6x as many active users and will charge for verification separately at this stage so 10 million paid Meta accounts seems realistic in the short term = ~$1.44 billion a year.
2.96 billion people remember that the company exists on a daily basis. Meta did more than three times TikTok's reported total 2022 revenue in Q4 alone.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt14129378/
reply