Is there tho? I have Facebook account but don't use it in any meaningful way. I'm certainly not feeding it any new data. I'm curious to know what percentage of that 3 billion are zombie accounts like mine.
90% of zoomers don't have an account, most rarely use it and don't add more than a few photos for social proof.
There are many people of all ages not in the west from very populous nations who use Insta, FB and WhatsApp.
I’ve learned that US usage patterns are not representative of rest of world.
More saliently, HN users’ conception of others’ usage patterns are absolutely not representative.
At even 1% of that figure, that's a heck of a lot of people.
1. https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...
It's for real estate so you can't select age ranges.
The view count grouped by age (highest views to lowest) was:
- 65 to 75
- 55 to 65
- 45 to 55
And almost all women.
In other words, there are a LOT of older women on FB.
Yes.
> I'm curious to know what percentage
A fraction of one.
Same with most topics that HN considers sensitive, such as privacy concerns. >99% of people just don't give a shit.
So how many billions is that before throwing in IG and FB?
Also WhatsApp is absolutely huge around the world and wherever I go it doesn't seem like it's slowing down.
Craigslist had no accounts or login wall. Postings were chronological with a map. Simple email for communication rather than FB messenger.
People don't need to love a company to use its products. The perceived benefit merely needs to be bigger than the perceived cost.
I presume the hardest part would be avoiding detection via decompilation and other reverse engineering techniques. Not familiar with that space (can anyone here shed some light?), but it seems likely that an entity with Meta’s resources would be able to figure that out.
E2EE probably protects well against bulk data collection (traffic analysis would sniff out sending 2x volume of data pretty quickly). But something more subtle and targeted, smuggled out in various fields of various protocols, would be hard to detect.
The only risk would be the reputational damage. And as far as their bottom line is concerned, the impact of that would be negligible—how many of WhatsApp’s billion(?) users know that it’s supposed to be E2EE, let alone are under the illusion that Meta doesn’t have access to their data?
So e.g. opening a link to an Amazon product that a friend sent makes you a target for ads in that category.
It's a suspicion, they'd probably argue their EULA allows this. The typical "we have to monitor links for dangerous content" is always the standard bullshit.
This is even further away from the reality where people have breakdowns because their app icon moved location and is not in the usual spot.
The average person is optimizing towards energy use minimization by default because life is already hard enough with plans, kids, etc.
Use incentives and we will arrive at closer truths than by claims and expressions.
- Meta data of your messages is not encrypted so meta can make a graph of who you talk to and when
- backups are not encrypted by default so plaintext of your private chats can be obtained
- even if you enable encryption for backups all it takes is for the other person in your private convo (or a person in a group chat) to not enable it for your messages to be available in plaintext
Yes, but importantly not by Meta themselves.
> - Meta data of your messages is not encrypted so meta can make a graph of who you talk to and when
Fair enough and worth mentioning. I'm personally fine with it.
> - even if you enable encryption for backups all it takes is for the other person in your private convo (or a person in a group chat) to not enable it for your messages to be available in plaintext
Yes, but how would you prevent that even in principle? I can't control what the people I'm messaging do with their copy of my messages. As long as there isn't unnecessary non-repudiation (e.g. by the sender cryptographically signing all outbound messages, which the Signal protocol intentionally avoids), I think this is fair as well.
I do agree that e.g. vanishing chats with a short timeout/"view only once" images should probably not be included in backups, though; last time I checked, I think they were.
Don’t they save backups to Meta? Even if not, they can read whatever’s (unencrypted) on your phone if they really want to.
So now Android strips location info when sharing an image to an app. A filter layer between filesystem and app, to add complexity to the whole system...
Most security researchers lack Meta's history:
- Testing emotional manipulation features on thousands of users non-consensually
- Adding spyware on underage users
- Intercept a rival app's traffic
- Allowing harm to teen mental health
And most importantly, most security researchers lack the money and power to fend off the legal consequences of these acts.
Why would you assume that security researchers don't know about these? If anything, wouldn't all the bad press and scandals make WhatsApp a more likely target of scrutiny?
> And most importantly, most security researchers lack the money and power to fend off the legal consequences of these acts.
Yes, security research is generally expensive, but do you have any evidence for Meta taking legal steps against it and making it actively harder? I remember e.g. the controversy around WhatsApp re-encrypting unconfirmed outbound messages to a new key; this was revealed by security researchers and widely discussed. (Not that they're making it easier by providing source code for WhatsApp's cryptography or a debug interface to validate what's actually going on in the client, but neither does e.g. iMessage.)
In fact, there's a relatively absurd lawsuit against Meta on WhatsApp encryption going on right now, and these claims are widely being repeated all over social media.
https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...
I guess a lot of the AI enthusiasts are already pushing the "I automated my daily life decisions to this awesome AI. I now have more time and more brain power left to be productive!" angle.
I could do a lot better at meal planning than I do. I rotate between relatively few dishes. An AI that finds recipes and automatically adds the ingredients to my shopping could be interesting. Technically it’s “telling me what to eat” but it’s not like I’m taking orders from it.
And yes, you can counter with a hypothetical about a future totalitarian police state, or evil hackers, or whatever, but that makes you sound crazy. In practice, it's a trade-off most people are comfortable making because they can't think of anything that some trillion-dollar tech company, or the FBI, or the FSB, would ever want to do to them specifically.
It's the same reason why the market share for Firefox is a rounding error.
Immigration agencies are absolutely monitoring social media when people cross borders, apply for visas, etc. There's nothing hypothetical or future about this at all.
The hypothetical part was not about them being able to do it, but about them caring to do anything with that information.
My mother is pretty much locked-in on fb/whatsapp/instagram. She travels internationally rather frequently, including to more "questionable" countries (where she just happens to have relatives that she wants to visit). She has never faced any issues related to her usage of meta products (or social media in general).
It boggles my mind how there are actual adults on HN, who straight up fail to comprehend that telling a normal person (e.g., my mom, who is imo in the majority of the kind of people using social media) something like "you shouldn't be doing it, because muh gubernment surveillance and unencrypted comms and you are being watched by the feds" is gonna just make you sound crazy.
And why wouldn't it? She has never faced any issues, and she has been actively using whatsapp+ig all the time, for over a decade. And the same holds true for everyone she knows as well. Not once did she face any issues ever, despite traveling multiple times a year every year, including to some countries that are on pretty adversarial terms with the US (we are talking "sanctioned" type of adversarial).
The thing is, she faces none of the hypothetical issues that could come from her usage of those services. Neither do any of the people she ever talked to, and that's the overwhelming majority of the users of those services. You are more than welcome to claim that she might not be educated or aware enough to understand the issues at hand (and it is at least partially true). I am just baffled and disappointed by how there is such a large contingent of HN users who straight up cannot even comprehend the mindset and experiences of an average adult user.
Well yeah if that is how you choose to have that conversation then sure.
> more than welcome to claim that she might not be educated or aware enough to understand the issues at hand
I made no such claim.
You seem pretty committed to your strawmen so good day to you sir.
I dont think anyone knowing full and well would be comfortable with it. At least that would dumbfound me.
If you can't understand how the general population, the target customer for Meta, would think of using something like this, then it almost certainly means your entire social circle is within the same tech-aware bubble that you are in here. ;) I have a few non-tech people that I talk bounce this sort of thing off of, periodically, as a reality check.
It's not just Meta, either. How often do we have people on here talking about how amazing Chinese models are when the list of security breaches involving the Chinese government is extensive?
People want something easy, quick, and free. Do those things and they'll let you get away with anything.
The technology is produced by a public company. And, in this case, the company is useful context for this story since it has just recently agreed to pay about $18 billion to resolve a multistate lawsuit claiming it intentionally designed addictive platforms that harmed young people's mental health.
You cannot detach the technology from the company. It's definitely not a neutral artifact.
It's impossible (or at least dishonest) to try to simply discuss the pure technical aspects of The Torment Nexus.
It's just tradition at this point.
Facebook marketplace is huge here.It's basically our craigslist. Hobby groups/communities are also huge. If I wanted to find the local jogging or chess club, I'd use Facebook.
Just remember that outside your bubble there's a whole wide world with billions of people living in it
And the thing is, network effects are killer. I'm on it because you're on it because Alice is on it because Bob is on it
But, Facebook has apparently been known to censor links to competition (I'm less clear on this). With Myspace they had a tool where you could import contacts into Facebook from Myspace, but not the other way around
That’s the godawful truth. The other thing you need to realize is not only do people don’t care, but people like you know exactly why meta makes billions. It’s obvious. You seriously expect me to believe you don’t know why a company like meta makes billions? Come on.
It’s sad but thats the way things are. I see someone pretend they don’t get it but if you take the time to think you’ll realize… We all get it. We just can’t face it.