[high_derivative]

Sorry, but my point stands. In Facebook's case, there is absolutely zero reason to assume good intentions, give the benefit of the doubt, have general good-will, or believe its employees regarding privacy aims.

[la_barba]

Which social media company would you believe regarding privacy?

[nafey]

Nothing such as absolute trust. It has to be a relative comparison. For me it is Apple, Google, Facebook in that order.

[fghtr]

Purism: https://librem.one/

[rtkwe]

Any social with a monthly fee is not going to hit the same network criticality that makes Facebook reign supreme. Attracting people to a new service is hard enough tell them it'll cost 50$ a year and it's hopeless.

[gregknicholson]

The network is not the same thing as the provider. Anyone can use Mastodon for free, so Purism is part of a larger network than just Purism.

[wpietri]

Any social media company whose business isn't renting your eyeballs to the highest bidder.

[jawilson2]

Any examples?

[wpietri]

I was mainly kidding, but you could look at Signal as a company like that.

[saagarjha]

Y Combinator?

[chillydawg]

None, obviously.

[inflatableDodo]

The Masons.

[reroute1]

It doesn't stand in those countries obviously it is available there. There is no reason to assume bad intentions either and your first statement was just a lot of assumptions and already has been corrected for being not completely true.