SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the one-ring-^W-messenging-app-to-rule-them-all dept.
Some lawmakers are already raising concerns about Facebook's plans to merge its messaging apps
Facebook plans to partially combine its most popular messaging apps — and some lawmakers don't sound happy about it.
On Friday, The New York Times broke the news that CEO Mark Zuckerberg is pushing his company to merge the back-end of Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram. The change would mean that users of one app would be able to message users of another, and it would tie the currently disparate Facebook-owned products far more closely together.
[...] California Democratic congressman Ro Khanna was one of the first to comment, suggesting on Twitter that the move raised anti-trust concerns about Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014 respectively.
"This is why there should have been far more scrutiny during Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp which now clearly seem like horizontal mergers that should have triggered antitrust scrutiny," he tweeted.
"Imagine how different the world would be if Facebook had to compete with Instagram and WhatsApp. That would have encouraged real competition that would have promoted privacy and benefited consumers."
In an emailed statement, Democratic senator Ron Wyden, an outspoken voice on tech policy issues, told Business Insider he had concerns about privacy and data protection issues.
"I have a lot of questions about how Facebook intends to combine these services. If it does anything to weaken the security and encryption of WhatsApp, that would represent a major blow to the security of millions of people around the world," he wrote.
"If Facebook is doing this so it can harvest even more our personal information for profit, it's yet another reason to be concerned about how corporations are using our data. This is yet another reason to pass a strong privacy bill, like the one I've proposed."
From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Mark Zuckerberg's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today (paywalled, but summarized here) relies on all-too-familiar refrains to explain the dubious principles and so-called "facts" behind Facebook's business model. It's the same old song we've heard before. And, as usual, it wildly misses users' actual privacy concerns and preferences.
He starts with one of his greatest hits: "People consistently tell us that if they're going to see ads, they want them to be relevant." This perpetuates the ad industry's favorite false dichotomy: either consumers can have "relevant" ads—targeted using huge collections of sensitive behavioral data—or they can be bombarded by spam for knock-off Viagra and weight-loss supplements. The truth is that ads can be made "relevant" and profitable based on the context in which they're shown, like putting ads for outdoor gear in a nature magazine. To receive relevant ads, you do not need to submit to data brokers harvesting the entire history of everything you've done on and off the web and using it to build a sophisticated dossier about who you are.
[...] Zuckerberg deploys Facebook's favorite PR red herring: he says that Facebook does not sell your data. It may be the case that Facebook does not transfer user data to third parties in exchange for money. But there are many other ways to invade users' privacy. For example, the company indisputably does sell access to users' personal information in the form of targeted advertising spots. No matter how Zuckerberg slices it, Facebook's business model revolves around monetizing your data.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 27 2019, @04:32PM (7 children)
You're so stupid. Like, an Italian will never screw you over in business. Ever heard of the Mafia? No Englishman will ever rip you off, either. Remember all the treaties the English signed with native Americans, before the US came along? All violated, by the English. No Spaniard, no Bohemian, no Russian - in fact, no European would ever fuck you when you least expect it.
Except for those few Jews who I can identify on the internet, like Zuck, I don't think I've ever beed ripped off by a Jew. I've certainly been ripped off by black and white Americans, as well as some Latinos.
Why don't you take some time to sit in a corner, and just grow the fuck up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27 2019, @04:42PM
Well jeeze! You're sure an easy catch! Can't believe you fell for that! Don't feed the bears!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27 2019, @05:22PM
Remember, zuck didn't rip anyone off. people expose themselves to him for their own pleasure. he then in turn sells that as his business model.
(Score: 4, Informative) by HiThere on Sunday January 27 2019, @05:27PM (2 children)
Actually, the English Crown was rather honorable in respecting treaties with Native Americans. It was the settlers and the local governments that broke the treaties right and left. In a way this is reasonable, as the English government wanted to keep the settlers weak and dependent upon it, so the treaties that they signed which affected the settlers were designed with that end in mind.
That said, from an ethical point of view, rather than power politics, the English government's relations with the Native American tribal governments was superior to, say, their treatment of France, and definitely superior to the actions of the local government representatives. Look into the history of the Iroquois Confederacy.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 27 2019, @06:31PM (1 child)
Is there any difference at all between "rather honorable" and "scrupulously honorable"?
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Monday January 28 2019, @12:41AM
Yes, there is a difference. A "scrupulously honourable" man will report their son to the police when he comes home with a dime-bag of weed. A "rather honourable" man will explain to his son that he would prefer to never see dope in his house again.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 27 2019, @05:43PM
You're being trolled, idiot. This guy is doing the equivalent of posting a goatse link.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27 2019, @09:24PM
You're too stupid to even read. One of the stupidest americans around.
//At least non-jews will have some inhibitions.
At least the non-jew will have _some_ humanity; the khazar jews have none.
But you're too stupid to remember that.