Hacker News Reader

Comment by Brushfire | Hacker News Reader

If they don't do E2E, users will abandon Facebook for platforms that do support it (and already are). And they aren't doing this to commit crimes, but to prevent advertisements from targeting every conversation they've ever had.

View on HN

I doubt the large majority of users of Facebook services can even pick out advertisements from content, let alone care about E2E encryption.

I don't think they will be hurt by the fraction that do leave for this reason.

>users will abandon Facebook for platforms that do support it

Assuming someone already has knowledge of Facebook's past activities, then they are likely already gone. If they are still using the service, it's unlikely this will make a difference.

Cheap and convenient is just too much of a draw for some folks. Especially when it involves "staying connected" with friends and family (irrational behavior driven by emotion).

I wonder how many WhatsApp users are aware that their messages are encrypted end-to-end.

It shows that in every message thread, so I'd say everyone; how many understand that and realize the consequences of having or not having E2E encryption is another matter.

I also wonder how many users are aware of the imperfections in the end to end encryption in WhatsApp.

https://keybase.io/blog/chat-apps-softer-than-tofu

(I have no affiliation with Keybase, I just appreciate their very thorough and public analysis.)

Thanks for posting this!

I used the wayback machine to read the older version of this article, it took specific aim at WhatsApp and Sigal, indicating that (in so many words) it disapproved of the apps providing a notice of Safety Numbers changing instead of the app flipping its wig and making the user take affirmative action to continue communications, otherwise it wasn't true TOFU.

I have about 30+ contacts on Signal, and I almost __never__ get Safety number changes. I certainly don't think making the user click through yet-another-dialog-they-wont-read will be a big security improvement.

I suppose I disagree with the 'not true TOFU' argument.

They won't. People are not really giving a crap for their (and their peers') safety. Just look at how popular Discord is alongside FB.

I think if more people understood that it could reduce creepy ad targeting they would be more ready to move.

You are unable to tell whether any service uses E2E. It is best to assume we don't have E2E services and adjust own opsec accordingly.

People are so much on board with govt surveillance, and so indifferent to privacy technology that it is now the duty of tech to teach people the tools they should use. If , of course, tech is on the side of true privacy

No they won't drop Facebook. They will keep using facebook as long as it's useful to them or the next big thing comes along. 90% of people don't care if the government spies on everything they do.

Honest question: We all know FB won't give up their targeting data, but if it's done locally on-device and we have access to see & modify it, would you support it as a better business model?

Framing it in terms of business models and inevitability dodges the question of whether they should be doing it in the first place.

You mean, should free advertising-subsidized services even exist?

Mining and storing user data is in no way a requirement to run ads.

So using data for optimization should be banned?

Obvious false equivalence. Just because we protect collecting/using certain data in certain contexts where we believe it does more harm than good doesn't mean we have to ban all data collection/use.

You specifically stipulated that the data optimization was bad - then why is data optimization of ads harmful? Doesn't serving relevant ads have more utility?

I made no such claim. You acted like tracking users was required to run an ad-based website, I pointed out that running ads does not require tracking users.

I am not sure if I'd be willing to make the argument we should ban (as in make illegal) collection of user data, but acting like such data is required to run ads is ridiculous.

As if this were the only way to support such a service...

How about we techies stop kissing ass to the advertising execs and stand up to them for once??

They want more data, more relevant ads, more more more more more. Their ask is impossible without massive invasions of privacy. Fuck them, I say

Return to scattershot ads, they can understand me as an audience without having to mine every ounce of my life for it. That approach will produce more relevant ads for me anyway

I'm not going to answer this in regard to Facebook specifically, because I can't imagine a circumstance where I would be willing to use a Facebook product.

But since this idea has been brought up by a number of ad companies (Google, most notably), I can answer in the more general sense.

I would not support ad targeting done that way. It is a bit less objectionable, but it doesn't really address my objections to the entire practice.

Please name these other platforms

Signal messenger

Telegram, threema, wire swiss, matrix, signal and many more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com