If one doesn’t realize you’re op, the entire thing can be interpreted very differently.
Then “Not sure if sarcastic and woosh, or adding to the joke ಠ_ಠ” could be interpreted as something like “I’m not sure if you are adding to the joke and I’m not understanding it”.
It’s a necessary feature if you are using phone numbers. Signal has to tell you if your message has any chance of being received.
I don’t want to message someones number, to find out they never got my message and don’t have signal a few days later, and I don’t want to message them via whatsapp too, giving them a chance to use that when they have signal.
You can check that in the phone app too. Hit new message, enter the numer, hit "New message to… " and it’ll tell you if it isn’t known. There is rate limiting in that function, you’d need a lot of signal accounts to sweep all phone numbers.
You could also try signing up to signal using the number you want to check.
Neither way however you would get the signal name or profile pic of the number if I understand it correctly, that would get sent if they reply to you.
Hallstein was a member of several nominally Nazi professional organizations, but he was not a member of the Nazi Party or of the SA. He is reputed to have rejected Nazi ideology and to have kept his distance from the Nazis. There was opposition from Nazi officials to his proposed appointment, in 1941, as professor of law at the University of Frankfurt, but the academics pushed through his candidacy, and he soon advanced to become dean of the faculty.
Hallstein began his academic career in the 1920s Weimar Republic and became Germany’s youngest law professor in 1930, at the age of 29. During World War II he served as a First Lieutenant in the German Army in France. Captured by American troops in 1944, he spent the rest of the war in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United States, where he organised a “camp university” for his fellow soldiers.
I’m not sure that Huawei is considered worse because of US propaganda for everyone, or even most, but I can accept some.
I know a few people that certainly had their issues with them before I ever saw them even mentioned in the general media or online, before the propaganda we se now started.
In any case, if you say “that propaganda is not substantiated”, then can you please elaborate what specific claims where made and are wrong? Because as propaganda does they use everything negative about something and then make up some more, so if it’s all unsubstantiated wouldn’t that mean Huawei is absolute good and has never done anything even slightly bad?
My claims are that:
Huawei collects users private information, that they have no business and no reason collecting
if the CCP asks, Huawei will comply
in handing over user data
in not shipping or threatening to not ship components for infrastructure for geopolitical reasons (the thing most countries claiming as their reason to ban Huawei from their infrastructure)
Huawei is not worker owned, though they claim to be (this ones new after the other discussion I linked above)
Did you not listen? I started with saying that your evidence wasn’t relevant to the matter at hand. This is about smartphones, not telco equipment.
Then I partially agreed with you on the uk case, and explained why your source on the german case was utter trash, and wrong.
There are no relevant facts for your original point on the ground, you didn’t bring any and I showed why. You spent your time moving goalposts and bringing up new unrelated issues.
The current state of the discussion is:
the uk may have been influenced by the us to be harsher on huawei than need be
both germany and the uk had and have consensus on some suspicions against huawei
the suspicions in the uk where present before and got amplified after us action
those suspicions are multi-factored, some of which apply to us as individuals and some do not
Your original claim was:
Huawei is better than Google, fear of Huawei is solely cause by propaganda.
No arguments have been made yet, the discussion has gone nowhere because I was stuck refuting your side-projects.
If you wanna look at actual facts, see for example this comment I made to someone elses .
There I go into some issues with Huawei itself, and the relations of it to the chinese government, as well as indications that they are trying to hide those for image reasons. That is a fact-based source that the relations are real, that they are creating propaganda to hide that, and why they would do that. If you are looking for facts go look at that.
I do not refute that the US is propagandizing against Huawei, and that they are influencing other governments to follow their decisions against Huawei, and thus their media influence to be directed to defending that and propagandizing against Huawei too.
I agree that this is happening, and I highly dislike it.
Just because a side is using propaganda, doesn’t mean they are wrong. Being careful we can filter out some facts, then filter those for what is relevant to us as consumers. And we end up with the result that Huawei smartphones are a privacy nightmare, basically any consumer tech with their software and internet access is, and should be avoided. Components and hardware by them is probably fine for now, so if are going to replace their software, or are gonna sandbox their devices, then to a consumer I see no reason not to buy from them (as opposed to governments, where there are valid reasons not to).
To summarize:
you can (should) be against Huawei based on facts alone
Huawei Smartphones collect a lot of data from their users and send it to Huawei[1], and the founder of Huawei has very strong relations to the Chinese government[2].
A company being employee owned is a very good sign, but mainly for worker treatment. Huawei is still not managed by all of its employees; a few people in upper management are tasked to represent the owners interest, and in that process, as per usual, morals get diluted.
You can see this by the facts that Huawei phones still violate user privacy by collecting copious amounts of data on them, or that Huawei knowingly supplies surveillance equipment to the CCP, that is used in areas where a lot of Uyghurs live and in the not-concentration-camps that reeducate Uyghurs .
Besides that, I also just came across “Huawei states it is an employee-owned company, but this remains a point of dispute” on their wikipedia article, which at a cursory look appears to have some good points against that statement behind it.
The paper about that is here doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669
In summary, we find the following:
The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not.
So at every path we come to the same conclusion, the CCP will get your data, and about as much of it as google (and probably the US government) if you used their operating system and services.
Huawei is about as trustworthy as your average trillion dollar corporation, and about as devious with their whitewashing as all others too. Google is masquerading as pro-privacy, apple as pro-repair and pro-environment, and Huawei as pro-worker and state-independent, because they all aren’t but would profit if they where perceived to be