Does Whatsapp connect to messenger like Instagram does? Not sure it’s any better though, since it’s still owned by Meta. I wish I could get everyone on signal
Of course it does? That’s like one of the main headlining features of both Signal and Telegram, and why people were looking at either instead of Whatsapp. And it was even louder than Telegram about it, since telegram uses (or used) a closed source encryption, while Signal was vocally using an Open Source encryption standard if I remember correctly.
Yeah, encryption and security is signal’s whole thing. They even removed the ability to send SMS a while back because they were prioritizing security over all else. Def check it out
i saw one person do something like this: messages JOIN ME ON SIGNAL(or anything not owned by Facebook and amazon) IF YOU DON’T WANT TO WELL WILL LOSE CONTACT SO PLEASE JOIN ME
im not sure on how well this will work but maybe exclude you’re family but try to get them to atleast WhatsApp but even better a private messager also consider xmpp/jabber and matrix for jabber i recommend calyx institute jabber server
Yeah but that doesn’t prevent them from snooping directly on the app. For example they can look at who you’re talking to the most, or extract topics of interest from your conversations (“talking about cats? let’s sell them cat food”)
Nope, you’re not. That’s a choice. I have no shortage of people using privacy invading messengers, crazy thing, when I send them a SMS/MMS… they get it, like everybody does.
You’re not stuck. Just leave, and make people talk to you over Signal. If they’re not trying to talk to me on Signal or Matrix, I will never see it. This not only got me off of services like Messenger, but also showed who gave enough of a shit about me to go through Signal’s simple setup.
Two way street indeed, I didn’t say all of them followed me or anything like that. I lost contact with many doing this, as expected and intended. But I got much closer to those who did move over. Most of them moved over without me even doing anything because they cared about their own data privacy and realized that it’s easier to setup Signal than it is to setup an entire Facebook account anyway.
Man… What happened to just texting your circle of friends?? I get by pretty well doing that. About half are on signal. The other half just text regular, which I’m cool with.
They will. This was most likely planned by their legal team in advance, will cost Facebook a negligible amount compared to their revenue and marked as a “risk.” And when they settle it will be a planned business expense, like a fine
Yeah they don’t even need to hire a law firm. They pay millions of dollars in retainer every year to keep lawyers on staff, so this is just someone’s day job to go through the motions
The article says Meta already tried to buy them out four times. So this company is waiting for a bigger payout or they don’t plan to sell. With a court decision on their side they will have much more leverage to force Meta’s hand.
The company has said that they’ve spent a decade building their “brand” under that name. So, if they’re pushing for a big payout, they intend it to be gargantuan rather than the usual payoff. Changing their name would essentially be starting over in some ways. And the confusion they claim as their reason for action is a legit thing.
I’m not saying that isn’t their goal behind the scenes, but FB tried to buy the name and failed, so I have a feeling they aren’t looking for the usual quiet payoff that’s the goal of that type of action.
Eh I don’t think they have much of a claim here. Threads is a super common word in software and Facebook can so what they want with their own platform.
The problem is that the company doing this is in messaging. It isn’t a direct competitor, but it’s a legit proposition, as per the analysis lawyers have made. It’s big enough news that the usual outlets have chimed in, and the gist has been that a suit would have standing
It’s a shame how obvious they’re working their corporate bullying cards simply because of money. Imagine if I created a product called Google and tried to sue Google for it. That would be ridiculous, right? Well, that’s what Facebook is doing, just with money.
It’s not what Facebook is doing. The company has owned the trademark for over a decade, and Facebook is trying to strong arm them into giving it up.
This is also in the UK where they somewhat stand up to companies like Facebook. McDonald’s lost their trademark for the Big Mac for trying to do this exact same thing.
Maybe I didn’t convey what I’m saying well. Facebook is attempting to take a name because they have money. Laws don’t really apply to them, they seem to think, and it’s because of their bullying and their money.
Eh, the UK isn’t in the best situation, in terms of big tech. If anything, most FAANG companies have got away without paying any tax here for over a decade because the alternative is they ship all of their jobs elsewhere, and the UK tech scene implodes.
I think a UK court would likely stand up for the British company, as they should, but I would expect Meta to be allowed to throw their weight around a little.
Okay, pointing out the analogy of "Imagine if I created a product called Google and tried to sue Google for it [...] Well, that’s what Facebook is doing" doesn't match this situation.
Facebook created a product called Threads and is attempting to bully Threads Software into taking their name. I was creating a hypothetical situation about how most small companies can’t just steal a company trademark, because it’s rightfully someone else’s. However, if you are a larger company and, have enough money, and have shit ethics, then you can just kinda… ignore that, and for some reason, the US is happy to let wallets write the law.
I agree, that is what they're doing. My only point was they're being sued, not suing someone. They just took the name and were ignoring the other company that was already using it.
Probably not. They’ll farm the jobs off to Berlin, most likely.
With that said, I’d be shocked if the inevitable UK/US trade deal didn’t include some degree of visa. British workers are cheap as fuck, and our service industries already do a lot of cheap labour for US companies that don’t want to pay domestic workers.
Add comment