RT:
WhatsApp is threatening users who violate its rules with lawsuits, even if the only evidence of “rule-breaking” exists outside of the Facebook-owned messaging app and the only judge is an AI.
“WhatsApp will take legal action against those we determine are engaged in or assisting others in abuse… even if that determination is based on information solely available to us off our platform,” the company warned in an ominous FAQ entry posted on Monday.
The source is RT, but the FAQ linked in the excerpt does say that. Would we want Kellogg's surveilling us to make sure we're using their corn flakes properly?
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @09:08PM (9 children)
You analogy is so flawed as to be useless. Long before you've even purchased your Corn Flakes, Kellogg's is completely out of the picture.
WhatsApp is an XMPP [wikipedia.org] server, and as such, all messages flow through their servers. They are involved in each and every message you send or receive.
What's more, WhatsApp can set any rules they want. If you don't like the rules, don't use WhatsApp.
I'm not sure why there's any controversy at all. If you don't like it, vote with your feet.
I've managed go more than 50 years without ever using WhatsApp, to no ill effects.
If I want to use XMPP, I run my own Openfire [igniterealtime.org] server on my own hardware. No one accesses it unless *I* provide access, and strong encryption is available and easily configured.
And if you don't have those resources, you can always use Signal [signal.org].
One of the advantages of both Openfire and Signal is that their parent company isn't snarfing up PII like a someone with Prader-Willi Syndrome [wikipedia.org] at a Vegas buffet.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 14 2019, @09:18PM
Yuuup!
Don't use Facebook, whatsup, twatter..... i've gotten along fine without ANY of those 'social' 'apps'.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday June 14 2019, @09:40PM (1 child)
The problem here is that there will be lawsuits based on constructed "evidence". Quite a net they are casting out. I hope somebody important with a good lawyer gets snared.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @09:53PM
IIUC, the changes to the TOS are focused on groups spamming WhatsApp users.
Presumably, there is a profit motive there. If WhatsApp's actions make it less profitable (or unprofitable) to do so, those folks will vote with their feet.
And if they do this abusively, they will lose even more users. It's not like WhatsApp is the only game in town [jabber.at]. N.B. the preceding link are just public XMPP servers.
There are many other encrypted messaging platforms that aren't XMPP or called WhatsApp.
If the changes help WhatsApp and/or their users, WhatsApp wins. If it doesn't, there are many other choices.
So I'll say it again, so what?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @10:36PM (5 children)
I say same about you English.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:52AM (3 children)
The below are the first page of results from the google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22so+flawed+as+to+be+useless%22 [google.com]
Don't believe me? Do the search yourself.
Note that this is just the *first* page of results.
I'm sorry, what were you saying about my English?
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/analogies-citations-photo-ops [commonwealmagazine.org]
http://tribecatrust.org/what-is-a-historic-district-and-why-have-one/ [tribecatrust.org]
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/18412571 [goodreads.com]
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2011/06/20/banks-are-safe-say-banks [economist.com]
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/06/14/2049209 [soylentnews.org]
Text from the results below could not be copied as they are scans of books Check them out for yourself:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DBwrPX5MSMsC&pg=RA2-PT41&lpg=RA2-PT41&dq=%22so+flawed+as+to+be+useless%22&source=bl&ots=aa5d2cD9_1&sig=ACfU3U3NlW8WMH64gf-Rc-j3oG4w0gVXBQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiimdzhnuriAhUFxVkKHbHCDT4Q6AEwBHoECAcQAQ [google.com]
https://books.google.com/books?id=hjT9wwchiAIC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=%22so+flawed+as+to+be+useless%22&source=bl&ots=OjiULnKR1j&sig=ACfU3U32m1yEsWlPf7c1N2B_trQzOhOTzg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiimdzhnuriAhUFxVkKHbHCDT4Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ [google.com]
https://books.google.com/books?id=NSZjamv10AgC&pg=PT127&lpg=PT127&dq=%22so+flawed+as+to+be+useless%22&source=bl&ots=149mJd0W5_&sig=ACfU3U280tAiTh8KlvVfcudWdWtS9uEpZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiimdzhnuriAhUFxVkKHbHCDT4Q6AEwBXoECAUQAQ [google.com]
https://books.google.com/books?id=j3gj33Z5pRAC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=%22so+flawed+as+to+be+useless%22&source=bl&ots=_WtmpnBd3q&sig=ACfU3U1aFHYeUEs_A6KQsHvpFei6wygF9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiimdzhnuriAhUFxVkKHbHCDT4Q6AEwBnoECAQQAQ [google.com]
https://books.google.com/books?id=cknMb_f-snMC&pg=PA550&lpg=PA550&dq=%22so+flawed+as+to+be+useless%22&source=bl&ots=cQGnQSGCnJ&sig=ACfU3U1WiFC6gCnaKdHvA29PGn1Dkb5H0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiimdzhnuriAhUFxVkKHbHCDT4Q6AEwB3oECAMQAQ [google.com]
https://books.google.com/books?id=dNUsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA550&lpg=PA550&ots=3J2B2jrJuf&focus=viewport&dq=%22so+flawed+as+to+be+useless%22 [google.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:36AM (2 children)
AC was mocking the OP's English. And now I am mocking your awareness. Whoosh
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:44AM
I'm working on almost 40 hours without sleep. But even so, I eventually got there [soylentnews.org]
Although I'm not sure why other AC thought I'd catch it right away (I just figured he was ESL and didn't recognize the phrase), when I didn't catch it the several times I previewed it before posting.
In any case, I hope you enjoyed yourself. I hope the fact that I feel no embarrassment at all doesn't take any of that enjoyment away.
My apologies if it did.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:46AM
Heck, I just modded *both* you up too. I guess today is your lucky day!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:04AM
You mean a typo? "You" instead of "Your"?
Sorry. My proofreader is gone for the day.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr