[intsunny]

Given that Threads requires an app, and the app requires obscene permissions (health, etc) ... its hard not to think that Meta can't escape their set ways and this app is doomed to fail.

The app serves Meta more than it does the public.

[jsnell]

I believe you're misunderstanding the privacy labels. They're not permissions. Installing the app grants Meta no additional access for collecting e.g. health data. What it's saying is merely that if they already have it, they might use that data in this app.

[holoduke]

Sorry thats just bs. The required psrmissions of the app is worrying. Imho the app only need 'internet and browse internal files' permission. Not location, device info and other sensitive data.

[jsnell]

If the GP had given "access to location" as an example of the obscene permissions, I would not have replied. That's indeed a permission that the app requests (but AFAIK doesn't require or automatically get!), and people can judge for themselves whether requesting that permission is reasonable or not.

But the GP didn't do that. They gave access to health data as the example, and that's just not a permission that the app asks for. (Is it even a permission that exists?). It's pretty clear that they're just regurgitating that misleading screenshot that was making the rounds a couple of days ago with no understanding.

If the app's privacy story really is that bad, one should be able to make that case while sticking to the facts.

[cmiles74]

The Register has a story about Threads and the permissions it asks for, "Health and Fitness" is indeed on the list. Honestly, it looks like it simply asks for every conceivable permission (what is "Sensitive Info" or "Other Data"?) There's a screenshot at the bottom of the article with the full list.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/05/threads_comes_to_uk/

[jsnell]

Right, this is exactly what I mean. That screenshot is not a list of permissions.

That is a screenshot of the Privacy Labels. It's basically a structured form of the app's privacy policy, self-reported by Facebook. Them putting "Health and Fitness" in that list does not in any way grant their app access to any health data on your iPhone. The same is true for literally every other item on that list. It has no impact on what iOS lets the app do.

The reason all of that data is listed there is that Meta might already have it associated with your account, due to e.g. your use of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Quest, and they might make use of that data in this app too. Or possibly they want a single unified privacy policy for all their apps.

[cmiles74]

I found some documentation. This is supposed to be an enumeration of all the data that the _application_ collects from the phone. It's surprising to see that the app is collecting health data, presumably the phone prompts a person to grant the permission when they try to fetch that data.

If, as you say, this covers all data "used" in some manner by all Meta apps then I think this is a clear misuse of the policy. Providing a list of labels that includes literally every label isn't helpful to the person deciding if they want to continue using the application or not.

In any case, if Threads doesn't collect health data then, IMHO, the privacy label shouldn't be listed. By Meta's own admission, their app collects this data and posts it back to Meta.

[aaomidi]

Literally read what that labeling does.

It doesn’t give the app access to your health data.

[imgabe]

Where does Threads require access to health? I installed it on iPhone and it never mentioned anything about that. That is not required at all.

[gardaani]

Have a look at the App Privacy for the Threads app: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/threads-an-instagram-app/id644...

"The following data may be collected and linked to your identity: Health & Fitness, Purchases, Financial Info, Location, Contact Info, Contacts, User Content, Search History, Browsing History, Identifiers, Usage Data, Sensitive Info, Diagnostics, Other Data"

You agreed to give all that data to Meta when you downloaded the app from the App Store.

[imgabe]

It has to actually request the permission from iOS to get access to the data and it doesn't do that.

When I go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Health, Threads is not listed as an app that has access.

Maybe at some point in the future it will request access, and you can just deny it then if you don't want it.

[the_snooze]

I see the same things. The only permission Threads asked for was Notifications.

I think the poster is confused between technical system-granted permissions (e.g., Contacts, Location, Bluetooth, etc.) and app privacy labels (i.e., a self-declared user-friendly version of a legalese privacy policy).

[bkishan]

By your logic, is Instagram a failure too? Its just those same permissions.

[benoliver999]

Instagram doesn't require an app.

But I get your point, I doubt people really care.

[manuelflara]

> Instagram doesn't require an app.

Instagram was app-only for years, though. It added the web version a long time later

[greensmith]

I doubt they will keep it app only. If they want to attract news outlets from twitter they will need to support embedding somehow

[saurik]

https://www.threads.net/t/CuVd5ibvscQ/

[miyuru]

threads already have embedding, on web click on share button and there is a "get embed code" button.

[greensmith]

Ah OK, I hadn't (still haven't) downloaded the app so presumed it wasn't at all accessible without the app.

[AdamN]

I mean, I myself will never use a Meta product but most users don't care and this is what Meta's customers (advertisers) are paying for so I don't see any reason they won't succeed.

[fennecfoxy]

Aha, you don't know regular normal non-tech people if you don't realise most people don't even look at the permissions required, they just hit "yes" because they want the "thing".

Look how popular TT is and they track/capture data out the ass. I've got 18-21yo friends who don't even bat an eye when it comes to it, it's become a fatalist "this is just the way the world works" thing I think.

[jillesvangurp]

There's a reason they don't offer this in the EU. Their internal lawyers likely put their foot down and told them that this product is just setting them up for expensive fines. It wouldn't surprise me if that happened pretty late in the development process too.

That tells me this is a rush job. Probably it's because they were afraid that the small opportunity in the market for someone to compete with Twitter might be very short lived. I think they are right and that they are late to the party.

Let's see what happens but I think this will indeed fizzle out pretty quickly. It will be interesting to see if they'll ever even bother with an EU launch of this thing. Without a strong story on privacy any attempt to launch in the EU is in any case doomed. So, this is looking like it's off to a lack luster and weak start.

[FranzFerdiNaN]

> Given that Threads requires an app, and the app requires obscene permissions (health, etc) ... its hard not to think that Meta can't escape their set ways and this app is doomed to fail.

THis is just peak Hacker News. Most people just click ok to get the stupid popup out of the way.

[catboybotnet]

Doomed to fail in some communities. Think general public: the people who just accept all permission requests no matter what, who don't care if there's another app to use since their only device is their phone, excluding their work PC.

[offices]

Provided federation pans out, it doesn't require an app. You could follow all these people from another instance.