Hacker News Reader

This should be strictly a recipient controlled option, only affecting the recipient's view then. Anything else is still a misleading UX for the sender, and assumes people read the fine print. They don't.

View on HN

This is horrible logic and ignores important opt-in/opt-out dynamics which are critical to our conception of privacy. By enabling "self-destruct," (or "disappear") the sender merely forces the recipient to "opt-in" and take affirmative action in order to archive the message (i.e. Screenshot). This is how telephone conversations generally work -- no recording unless one party takes action to tape it. Despite this ability to tape, we certainly still consider telephone to be more "secure" due to this archival distinction. Very often it is the advice of lawyers to avoid putting something in writing, and communicate it in person or over the phone instead. Disappearing messages brings us closer to this desirable ephermerality.

If you want a recipient controlled option that already exists as you can set the number of messages you want to save before old ones are deleted.

Not deleting the messages from the senders view just to teach users a lesson about security doesn't make any sense and would just confuse people. Showing a warning about it still being possible to take a picture of the phone with another camera would make more sense but seems a bit silly.

It's very simple. In the same feature as pruning old messages by count, add by time. Allow this on a per-conversation level. Done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com