January 10, 2021 at 10:08 am #3658agoraphileOrator
The question is: why is this any different from any other commercial platform? How surprising is it for Gmail users that Google measures absolutely everything about their emails, including their message contents? How does this impact the safety, privacy and security today vs at the time they adopted the app? And finally, why is coverage of the issue so obviously geared towards ‘switching’ rather than simply using multiple communications tools?
In many cases, those making the case are not privacy advocates, but users of Zoom, Gmail, Amazon and other tools by organizations with a terrible track record of ethical privacy conduct. So why write stories that foist cognitive dissonance upon readers when the simple, short term answers are “try both” and “if you want private and secure messaging, you’ve already got it”.
I have not seen any information presented by articles, blog posts and pundits (not to mention eccentric billionaires) that presents a convincing picture of Facebook’s historically gluttonous data collection practices (including the deeply flawed but popular 9to5Mac image) in the context of what the other FAANG/Big Tech companies do.
I am neither a WhatsApp user nor a fan of Facebook’s data collection practices. In fact, I complain about their targeted advertising on a daily basis, just because there is a mechanism for doing so. But in light of the fact that we are being exposed to increasingly loud and disjointed rhetoric about the imperative to ‘switch’ immediately, does this noise not have the hallmarks of manipulative rhetoric?
The overall effect of this ‘movement’ is loose enough to lend it credibility, yet specific enough to hint at motivated forces behind the push. Given that the original creators of WhatsApp are now enemies (and competitors) of Facebook, the company that made them multi-billionaires, as a reader, I would see reasons to look deeper. Certainly Elon Musk has made no secret of his epic hatred for Facebook and his love for Apple, so his considerable public persona is likely to command a lot of press coverage. Personal information powers everything from self-driving cars to online retail purchases, so it is natural for every company that wants to scale to move into Facebook’s space in an aggressive way. But that commercial battle, taking place beyond the limited horizon of individual users, stops no one from trying different tools and even having them simultaneously installed on their devices.
I find it creepy that such a vague but eerily organized attack comes at a time when human contact is a critical necessity for mental health and well-being. People who depend on the tool to stay in touch with their families and personal networks of friends are asked to ‘make the switch’ at precisely the time when all the world’s health organizations are sounding the alarm about fear, isolation, loneliness.
In the modern world, people exist in the context of their social circles. During troubled times, such as pandemics and global events, personal networks become a safety net for many. The safety impact of disrupting social networks of vulnerable humans during a time of forced social distancing may be more than advertising-dependent bloggers and wannabe privacy advocates are able to grasp, even as they lazily amplify the dubious calls to action they parasitically benefit from.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.