Same, but I'm pretty happy about it. I want my friends to share similar values and this is a good filter for that.
Because my opinion is that my friends willingness (or preference) to use a non secure messaging app owned by a giant tech corp has very very very low correlation with whether I'd like them to be a friend.
I'd also point out that this is exactly how bubbles occur. "Everyone I know hates WhatsApp/Facebook/whatever" says the person who refuses to communicate via those platforms.
No it isn't. You'd be surprised in the variety of people that you meet when you don't use algorithmic systems to do so. Just because you only maintain relationships with people who are not so glued to WhatsApp that they won't communicate through any other means, does not mean you have created a bubble for yourself.
They might do something when they get there and talk to people who are doing the same thing (or who just happen to be there).
I'm sure that is true. I was suggesting alternative ideas to calling random phone numbers as a means of getting out of one's "bubble".
It isn't. Nor did I say it was. The person I replied to said that not using WhatsApp is how social bubbles are formed. It isn't. That's what I was refuting.
It's true you are always able to avoid bubbles, and nothing I say precludes that ability.
However, information bubbles are a function of friction and defaults. If communication lessens with a people who don't share a particular view (ie, that Whatsapp has to be avoided) then that friction lessens exposure to that viewpoint, forming a bubble.
> you meet when you don't use algorithmic systems to do so.
AFAIK there is no algorithmic system on Whatsapp to meet people.
Which I guess is a useful filter if you want to be surrounded by techies and ideologues.
Like you, the choice of messaging app is quite beside the point (except FB Messenger being out of the question for reasons I'll explain). So, I still use a combination of WhatsApp, Signal and Skype.
If a friendship depended on me having a Twitter/FB/TikTok/Instagram profile though, I'm more likely to let that fade away. Similarly with dating: it'd be a dealbreaker to have to maintain a social media presence or find someone solely through Tinder or Bumble or whatever. I enjoy life more without social media in it, and without tech companies gatekeeping human connection through a mobile app. Some things just have to stay offline for the sake of me and my mental health.
If 20 of your friend's are using Whatsapp to communicate just fine, and you demand they change their mode of communication to suit your needs.
I'm starting to see why the trope of techies are anti social is so prevalent. Some of you really are absolutely socially inept.
> Some of you really are absolutely socially inept.
So if someone tells you "I'm sorry, I am not available at this channel, can we arrange some other method?" and you refuse to accomodate you take the other as socially inept?
It seems like you are projecting. Hard.
There exist systems which may violate your privacy, and you think that a possible demand to use them from any third party would be "fair", aproblematic?!
Good normalcy is that if some acquaintance put as a condition any controversial constraint, such as destructive behaviour ("binge drinking" etc.), irresponsible behaviour, degrading behaviour (that spyware is part of this latter) - the reply is simply "No".
And that would be antisocial behaviour, "No, I will not get tattooed (etc.) just because you would like that"?!
Children have replaced Men in this world.
Edit: oh, and by the way: behaviour that would stick to the framework of proper Society would be «[anti-]social»?!?!?! That is a dire reversal terms, and it shows the (satanic) perversity these """societies""" have reached.
It's not so weird to expect that your friends will acquiesce to your demand that they wear a seatbelt in your car, for instance.
But hey, I draw a line in the sand at the instant messenger! :-)))
And your reply remains "No", right?
Your post seems to be assumptions loaded. It sounds as if you were accusing strawmen of expecting people to behave rationally, wisely etc. That image has been superseded even in the theoretical grounds in which it had been used historically as a premise (e.g. Economics).
- They still collect things like your location, your call history, etc. In Brazil it's quite common for people to use WhatsApp to call their doctors. This means that Facebook can know what type of health issues you have just by checking if you are calling/texting a specialist.
- They are still owned by Facebook and they take whatever data they can to feed the Borg.
- I can not prove it, but I am convinced that they scan the video stream in the device.
You can't prove it, alright. But do you mind sharing why you are convinced they scan the video stream?
It's nothing really embarrassing or wrong, but I worry that it might be taken out of context.
Lots of people are currently willing to make that trade, at least until a competitor comes along that offers something better.
> at least until a competitor comes along that offers something better.
Next year, the EU is going to force all messenger platforms to interoperate. Then we will be able to really compare.
Previously I used Matrix/Element but never got it to work reliably with my friends (decryption issues, session verification obsession). And Signal has no web app. So WhatsApp it is for now.