[shadowfaxRodeo]

I got rid of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp about 4 years ago. Facebook and Instagram was easy, but people who have WhatsApp really think you’re weird for not having it.

Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.

If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.

[jasode]

>Deleting WhatsApp, [...], has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.

This practical application of your advice depends on where a particular person sits in their social hierarchy.

E.g. an influential person that's a "hub" or "connector" in their social circle can switch from WhatsApp to Signal ... or insist on email only ... or insist on no email and only hardcopy snail mail (Donald Knuth) -- and others will follow their lead or accommodate them.

On the other hand, if you're one of the folks at the "spokes" or "edges" of social graphs... being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you.

The above difference in social influence happens in Asia countries where many use WhatsApp beyond personal relationships for business to sell items or find work. If the business contacts you depend on for getting income use WhatsApp, you deleting WhatsApp just means you get $0 because they'd rather deal with other vendors who don't force them the hassle of switching to Signal. Power and leverage in social graphs matter.

[raxxorrax]

> because others don't care to switch to reach you.

I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. Contrary to popular belief is that you don't miss out on anything.

Business contacts are another matter, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. Same principle applies. If they don't make the effort, it wasn't a good contact anyway, although there are side effects because convinience is important. A bit of excentricity isn't a deal breaker, on the contrary.

Clout chasing is exactly the angle social media tries to satisfy.

[jasode]

>I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case.

That's a common counterargument that's similar to "then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they?!?" -- but oversimplifies the complexity of social life. It's not a simple binary dichotomy between "very good friends" and "no friends".

People also have an in-between status of "weak ties" that are mutually beneficial : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties

These types of relationships are more fragile and easier to "lose" by putting up barriers to communication. It's not realistic to impose a condition of "either you follow me to the Signal network or you weren't really my friend at all" on the whole world. Everybody doesn't have same weight of importance to everyone else and that's ok. Dunbar's Number may also be relevant here.

>, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels.

No they don't if you're one of hundreds of "disposable vendors" in Asia or other parts of the world using WhatsApp for business. The other business professional (with more leverage) just ignores your excentricity and works with others who don't inconvenience them.

>, although there are side effects

If the "side effects" are $0 income, that's a really big deal. It seems like you swept this aside.

>Clout chasing

It's not about about chasing "clout". Unfortunately, I used the word "influential" and I forgot that it has been tainted by recent phenomenon of "social media influencer". I couldn't think of a better word for "significant connector node on a social graph" other than "influential". (I think it's irony that by Donald Knuth insisting on USPS snail mail for correspondence -- and people actually getting past that friction to contact him -- that actually proves he has clout.)

In any case, I think your perspective is shaped by your experience in Western Europe so you really can't empathize with how some people (farmers, etc) depend on WhatsApp for their livelihood. They don't use it like a TikTok type of social network.

[bookofjoe]

Remember Klout?

[shadowfaxRodeo]

This is an excellent point.

I’m no influencer, but i do have a big family and lots of very close friends. I’m very lucky.

Many people are isolated and struggle to make and maintain friendships — especially over the last year. They don’t have the luxury of being able to take a stand.

[nobody9999]

>being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you.

I disagree. It accomplishes at least one thing -- WhatsApp isn't tracking/recording your messages any more. That's what I would care about.

[MadWombat]

So you prevent them from recording your conversations with friends by having no conversations and no friends.

[nobody9999]

>So you prevent them from recording your conversations with friends by having no conversations and no friends.

You're absolutely right. Because there's no such thing as other messaging apps, email, social media platforms, SMS/MMS, telephone, written correspondence or discussion over a beer/coffee/meal. Only WhatsApp exists.

Gee, I wish someone would invent some or all of of those things -- I'm so lonely! /s

[badRNG]

You aren't asking your contacts to delete WhatsApp as well in solidarity or to fully "switch", you are asking them to simply use Signal to communicate with you. If you mention you are uncomfortable using WhatsApp, and they aren't willing to use Signal to message you, they likely aren't worth talking to.

I deleted Facebook/Messenger awhile ago, and asked that people use Signal to communicate with me. All of the people I cared to speak to use Signal to message me, and many of them have used it for other purposes as well. That hasn't precluded them from using whatever they were using before. This only applies to the personal sphere of my life, conducting business with WhatsApp may be a different issue entirely.

[dotancohen]

I could have written this comment word for word.

People get _offended_ when you tell them that you don't have Whatsapp. But I let them hold that hot coal themselves.

[toto444]

I have (and have always had) a dumb phone so obviously no Whatsapp. I don't really undertstand its appeal. Being part of tens of groups that sends you notifications constantly because someone's posted a picture of their cat but you don't leave not to offend anyone does not sound a cool thing to me.

If people need to send me some information they text me. If sending a text is too much for them maybe I did not really need to know what they wanted to send. If I want to communicate with my friends and family I call them like we used to do in the 20th century.

[zionic]

This is so strange, no one in my social circle uses WhatsApp or has ever asked me to use it to talk to them. It’s all iMessage, Snapchat, and a growing group of people on Signal.

[hnlmorg]

Messaging clients tend to be regional. WhatsApp is massive in Europe. From what I gather WeChat is dominant in mainland China but Hong Kong still used WhatsApp (though I think they might be coming round to Signal?) and the US, who have a higher ratio of Apple users vs the rest of the world, tend to use iMessage a lot more.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Interoperability between these systems should be a public policy goal. I don't have to buy an AT&T phone anymore to call my friends; not sure why I have to buy iOS to chat with them.

[hnlmorg]

I agree with you but this is a problem that date backs to the 90s (anyone remember Bitlbee, Trillion, Pidgeon, etc?). Unfortunately incompatibility is seen by businesses a feature rather than a flaw -- despite the annoyances it causes for users.

[sbarre]

At one point the US Govt did mandate interoperability on AOL Messenger, once it became the dominant platform.

So there is precedent for this, but we live in very different times now.

[zaik]

What if we made a Internet Standard for messaging and presence?

[nobody9999]

>What if we made a Internet Standard for messaging and presence?

That's a wonderful idea. In fact, we've had such a standard since 1999 (protocol codified in 2004[0])

It's called XMPP[1]

[0] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP

[hnlmorg]

There's been a few open standards. The problem isn't that standards exist, it's that walled gardens are generally more profitable.

In fact Google Talk, Facebook Messenger and Skype were all either based upon, or supported XMPP...and now don't. Slack used to support IRC and not doesn't. There's a term often credited to Microsoft that also applies here: embrace, extend, extinguish.

[javagram]

SMS, MMS, and RCS are examples of such standards, although only SMS/MMS have full support on both iphone and android.

[dylan604]

I don't mind the interoperability. Take email for example. Even if you avoid Gmail/Google, so many people do, so Googs eventually gets your email anyway. So we chat, even if you don't use FB, if someone you chat with does, they still get that conversation. So the interoperability provides a buffer or insulator between you and the company you are wanting to avoid.

[Vinnl]

Then again, I've kinda given up on email privacy since at least half of my emails go to Google's servers anyway. I'm not sure if we can avoid Facebook having my IP address (or whatever future attack vectors are found after the protocol has been standardised) if I message WhatsApp users from my Signal account.

[scbrg]

Interoperability is tricky when one set of apps has end to end encryption as a requirement, and the other set has absence of end to end encryption as a requirement.

[mrweasel]

> WhatsApp is massive in Europe.

You're completely right that messaging clients is regional, but it's even more regional than just "Europe". I'm always confused when people claim that WhatsApp is huge in Europe, because I know literally only two people who use it. They only use WhatsApp because they have friends outside Europe.

I think we need to think in terms of single countries when talking messaging apps. Again take WhatsApp. Pretty big in Germany and Spain, but almost non-existing in Denmark (who instead rely more on Facebook Messenger or iMessage).

[Nimitz14]

It's nr 1 in Germany UK Spain Italy Portugal Switzerland Austria Belgium Netherlands Norway Greece. That's like 90% of Europe.

[Flashtoo]

I assume you're in the US. In most of Europe Whatsapp is the main communication platform. SMS is dead and Android is more popular than iOS, so no iMessage either.

[saberience]

In the UAE (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc), it's almost impossible to live without WhatsApp since almost every business does customer support using it.

Want to get a delivery? You'll be told about it via WhatsApp. Want to order food online? WhatsApp. Want to pick up your laundry? WhatsApp. etc. It's everywhere here and totally dominant. Deciding not to use it would make your life significantly harder.

[tonylemesmer]

I tried to precipiate a shift away from Whatsapp the last time they did a privacy grab a year or two ago. But so many people use it for group messaging. The gravity around Whatsapp is enough to prevent people swapping to Signal in my circles.

Now I've got so many messaging apps. I just want one. Only one.

(based in the UK)

[shadowfaxRodeo]

Understandably, people who don’t use WhatsApp, don’t think it’s weird that other people don’t use WhatsApp.

People who do have WhatsApp, probably have it, because most of the people they know have it.

[rtkwe]

It can depend a lot on where in the world you and your friend group are or are from. It's quite popular with the Indian H1B contractors in my office in the US for example but not too many of my US friends use it. Same story with my fiancé and her lab groups which have a lot of European grad students and post docs, it's quite common there too.

[lucasverra]

Usa?

Cause what parent described is common in EU + LATAM

[emptyfile]

I don't even know what iMessage is.

[egypturnash]

Apple's SMS/IM client. Only available on Apple operating systems.

[Macha]

Something something american teenagers bubble colours?

[emerged]

Same here, I’ve never even heard someone I know say the word “WhatsApp” in my life.

[pacija]

How _dare_ they not having xmpp and matrix accounts while I, the real mensch, selfhost both _servers_.

And what's with all the downmods and downright flags lately? I'm trying to be funny here.

[netizen-936824]

No humor allowed. HN is srs bsns

[strken]

Generally it's no zippy one-liner putdowns, more than no humour. I think the general idea is that if you want to criticise something, you should directly write out an argument against it.

In this case the joke wasn't even related to the discussion, since neither Signal[0] nor Telegram are self-hosted anyway.

[0] You can sort of self-host Signal, but last time I looked there was no way to change the URL in the client without rebuilding it, and it's not federated, so that's pretty pointless unless you also get all your friends to install your new version too.

[pacija]

Some people are shallower and less humorous than the others, and can't get the reference and joke where others can. I am fine with that, not that I want to be king of HN with best karma of them all. I just like to hang around bright humorous people, not shallow smugs.

The discussion was about some people getting offended because some other people don't have whatsapp accounts.

I selfhost xmpp (ejabberd) and matrix (synapse) servers for my friends and family. When someone asks - and this happens fairly often - how come I don't have [insert evil big tech IM company here] account, and how can I be contacted, I say I can be contacted by means of open federated protocol like xmpp or matrix, using open source apps like conversations or element, having account on one of many xmpp or matrix servers, including ones that I administer.

Most people say 'ok whatever man', but some say tell me more and get to get in touch with me.

Because of my knowledge and skill to avoid Evil Greed, and because I am actively working on liberating people from it, I think of myself as a better man than those who argue whether Signal is better than WhatsApp or Viber or whatever. And at the same time I remind myself I am no better than anyone or anything else in the Universe. And I am quite auto-ironic about it.

Is this enough lines of explanation?

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Eh, I think it is a good rule personally. At least for reddit-style low-effort one liner humor, not that I haven't been guilty of posting that myself.

[TeMPOraL]

On the contrary. HN loves humor. You just need to put some effort into it (or get lucky with timing).

[Helmut10001]

Use mautrix-whatsapp [1] on a home server to bridge Matrix chat to WhatsApp and (optionally) add a dedicated VoIP phone number for WhatApp.

Allows you to connect to/chat with WhatApp users using Matrix/Element.

[1]: https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp

[nisegami]

Not GP commenter, but I suspect you're mistaking a functional issue (not wanting to use Whatsapp's applications) from a moral issue (not wanting to use the Whatsapp platform).

[Helmut10001]

Somewhat you are right - but it is difficult to differentiate between the two: I don't want to use Whatsapp for moral issues, but I also a) don't want to loose connections to people who still use the platform and b) I don't believe in actiely convincing peole of anything. They have to reach these conclusions themselves - until then, I can choose mautrix to stay connected, limiting my interaction with the platform to the bare minimum.

[lucasverra]

how to ping you to know a bit more of that experience ?

[chagaif]

I have also been using this for nearly a year now, you can reach me at https://chagai.website

[croh]

Why isnt it possible to delete amazon account permanently ? Amazon still doesn't give option to delete purchase history which is kind of super annoying.

[Traster]

I think Amazon is actually a different story to a certain extent. Sure, you can delete your account, but at the end of the day you've transacted with them and they can keep a record of who they've transacted with, right? Personally I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it.

[malka]

> I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it.

Why ? for recent transaction, they need to keep it for tax purposes but they have no legal need to keep old records.

[tut-urut-utut]

In some countries, they need to keep it for 10 years for tax and audit reasons.

I wouldn't call 10 years "recent transactions". Heck, for most of the online shops, it's more like "forever".

[Sosh101]

Which countries?

[kelnos]

I don't think "need" matters here. They have a record of a transaction, and they want to keep that record. I don't think I have a right to demand that they delete that data.

The GDPR/CCPA/etc. likely has different requirements here, and probably requires deletion after they're no longer needed (for tax purposes or whatever).

But I personally have financial records going back decades, so I can't fault a company for wanting to do the same thing.

[jan_Inkepa]

Also at least in the EU you're legally mandated to keep transaction history along with customer information for some number of years iirc. Don't know how that combines with gdpr.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Actually the GDPR is very clear about this.[0] Instead of setting an arbitrary limit, it says it should be the shortest period necessary in the context of other laws and requirements. So if you need to keep the records for 5 years for tax reasons, you should delete them after 5 years.

[0] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...

[orwin]

Yes, and one of the cost of the implementation was actually the justification of keeping data, and segregating said data. We had some data we could keep 10 years, some (most) only two, some had to be deleted once the client left.

[jan_Inkepa]

Thanks for clarifying + supplying references :)

[OldTimeCoffee]

Because Amazon still has to have a record of the purchase. It's part of routine recordkeeping laws while running a business.

They could unlink it from your purchase history, but they would still have to maintain the record of the purchase. I believe this is effectively what 'Archiving' order does.

[wutbrodo]

> If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.

Is this really true? I do a smattering of weird/non-conformist things for moral reasons, and people are always _overly_ interested. IME, if you say "I don't do X for moral reasons" to someone who does X, they take it as a personal attack. It's closely related to the concept of "anticipated reproach". While they may pay lip service to it, most people aren't fundamentally able to understand the concept of moral pluralism/relativism, and won't be satisfied with "I think it's wrong but it's no black mark on you if you don't think it is".

[red_trumpet]

I mostly agree with your comment, having deleted WhatsApp myself this spring. However I have a problem with that.

> many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent

Did you not use the same network effect to get people to join Signal/Telegram? While I agree that Signal is morally better (being a non-profit and all), it is still a closed garden, which makes such network effects possible. And this in itself is a moral issue, I think. Personally I would like to use a system like, where everyone can choose his own server. But nobody in my social circle uses it, so I'm stuck with walled gardens...

[jakecopp]

Get them onto Element, it's brilliant! [1]. Matrix is an aggressively open garden - it even bridges to other social networks [2].

[1]: https://element.io/

[2]: https://matrix.org/bridges/

[arnoooooo]

I would not call Element brilliant. I have had a hard time getting others to adopt it. Fluffychat (Matrix client as well) is more user-friendly.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

My issue is with Facebook, not with the network effect itself. Happy to use the network effect to get people off Facebook.

[asdff]

IRC never went anywhere, you aren't stuck.

[nicbou]

In Europe, people just assume that you have it. I often get the first contact from pensions and airbnbs on WhatsApp. I convinced a few people to switch to Telegram, but there are still a few stragglers on WhatsApp and even Facebook Messenger.

[throwaway525142]

I believe Telegram is inferior to WhatsApp due to missing default end-to-end encryption.

[Pawka]

I'd say in parts of Europe. E.g. in Slavic regions Telegram is popular. In other regions Signal. Among my circles FB messenger seems to be the most popular.

[raxxorrax]

It is sadly very common in western europe, but you can easily live without it too.

[dmead]

I don't understand how telegram is less immoral than Facebook.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

Because it doesn’t collect personal data to sell to advertisers.

[dmead]

Just the Russian government. Like I said...

[fsckboy]

Facebook is a monopolist, Telegram is not

[asdff]

Do you live outside the US? I always hear how popular WhatsApp is on here but honestly I don't know a single person who uses that app in the US. Or any chat platform for that matter. Everyone just texts and calls at least in my younger millenial circle. I guess in other countries they still charge for texts and calls like its 2002 and maybe WhatsApp is more popular there to get around paying for each text message?

[kelnos]

I live in the US, and there are 4 or 5 people I talk to via WhatsApp as our primary communications channel. I'm also a member of 2 or 3 group chats that are used occasionally that I get value out of. I managed to move one group chat over to Signal, but the others didn't budge. I also find that WhatsApp is often the go-to for short-term ad-hoc group chats, like for a bunch of people who are on a trip or vacation together.

[orangepanda]

> Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.

Network effect is irrelevant for pure messaging services. If someone needs to talk to you, they'll send a pigeon if they have to.

[lopis]

You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you.

[nobody9999]

>You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you.

Then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they? If they were, they might make an effort, no?

[kelnos]

Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships.

[nobody9999]

>Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships.

A good point. I can't (and don't pretend to) speak for anyone else, but I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those.

Take from that what you will.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

Which messaging app do you think most people would join… one with nobody else using it, or one with everyone else using?

[xtracto]

I find Whats App to be the easiest of the 3: Whoever has WhatsApp has a mobile phone. So, it's just a matter of sending them SMS instead of WhatsApp. The odd situation is when contacting companies via WhatsApp, but most companies usually have alternative methods of contact.

[wintermutestwin]

Is the problem that a lot of non-US mobile providers don't include SMS for free?

I'm probably showing my ignorance around SMS and iMessage, but why can't SMS simply use your data allowance? Doesn't iMessage do this?

[mimentum]

SMS runs through a different protocol and has different set standards; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS

iMessage is a proprietary messaging system

[wintermutestwin]

Any idea why so many providers charge for SMS?

[kelnos]

Simply put, because they can. They may have a monopoly or near-monopoly on SMS service, so they can do what they want.

That was the state of affairs in the US until fairly recently; most carriers (in the US at least) offer a pretty standard plan that includes unlimited texting.

[waylandsmithers]

Maybe I'm just old or out of it? I've never used WhatsApp and don't see why I would need any chat apps other than just normal texting on my iPhone.

[mgarciaisaia]

It's not that you're old - you simply are not that poor.

WhatsApp first value proposition has been to enable cheap ("free") messaging while, at least here in Argentina, SMS would still cost a lot of money. The Android SMS experience is bad, too - or at least it's not a nice one.

Add groups, multimedia, audio calls with no long-distance fee, or even video calls (I don't think the phone system offers an alternative, at least here), and all of that being "cross-manufacturer" (we have 92% Android users here, so you still don't want to leave your two iOS friends out) and it's pretty much clear why WhatsApp works best.

Signal & Telegram could have make it, too - but WhatsApp was probably first, and they offered support for some feature phones back then when they still were around.