[glimshe]

In even more fairness, Meta has literally skipped the EU for Threads instead of increasing privacy. In their case, it's just a careful balance of virtue signaling, it had no qualms about pushing their spyware to hundreds of millions of people, violating basic human rights in the process.

Check Article 12:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

[hn_throwaway_99]

Your comment would have been stronger if you left out the piece re: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it's an eye roller. Article 12 is:

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

I'm no fan of Meta or their privacy violations, but saying that voluntarily downloading an app (which by the way does clearly outline their privacy practices) is equivalent to having my humans rights violated just really waters down what "human rights" should mean.

[_cenw]

> voluntarily downloading an app

that's all true until an app becomes the only way to interact with certain groups of people. i certainly wouldn't call my usage of Discord voluntary. it doesn't actually matter how often i read their privacy policy and shake my head. either I break off contact with a large part of the internet that's important to me or I begrudgingly agree "voluntarily" to their terms and conditions.

[Loquebantur]

People miss the forest for the trees here. Democratic society needs a way for people to communicate freely. Those ways are dying out fast.

In modern life, people don't discuss politics in townhalls, pubs, or whatever anymore. Online communication is by now far too siloed and supervised to the point of being unusable. Media are one-way streets, pushing the agenda of billionaires.

But you need to be able to have controversial discussions about "heavy" topics without fear of being ostracised. You need to have a back-channel to give feedback to "higher ups". Etc.pp.

A society where the individual is degraded to a mere drone (even if only loosely via framing) controlled by the "hive mind", without any recourse to voice constructive criticism is a lot of things, but certainly no democracy. There looms a dystopia on our doorstep.

[hn_throwaway_99]

To be honest, I think you've got at least part of it backwards.

> But you need to be able to have controversial discussions about "heavy" topics without fear of being ostracised.

Uh, why? People should have freedom of speech, but it feels like a lot of people want freedom from the consequences of the their speech. If anything, I think a lot of our current social disharmony is a direct result of the extremely recent development of people being able to mouth offline with very little social constraints.

Mike Tyson probably said it best: "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."

[alfonsodev]

Not even that, if I’m not mistaken Facebook imported contacts from users agenda and then allow third part apps to access the information, so even if you didn’t have a Facebook, you data was leaked.

https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-data-leak-contact-impor...

[dmbche]

May I ask, what compels you to use discord if it's not voluntary? It's absolutely impossible to use keybase or signal?

[_cenw]

Have you ever actually tried to convince a non-technical friend or family member to use a different platform for communicating? Now try that with 10 people at the same time. The only reason Discord ever became successful is the huge vacuum of good UX that existed before it. A fragmentation of Skype, Steam, XFire, Teamspeak, Vent and Mumble. Jabber if you were playing certain MMOs. Signal and Keybase aren't even close either. Matrix is a little better, but still far off, and they have the Mastodon problem where explaining federation turns off normal peoples brains.

And aside from that, a lot of software communities are on Discord now. People are gating download links behind it, use their threading feature for support and put their knowledge base in channels. And not just small communities and developers. ASUS has made their main communication channel Discord too.

[dmbche]

I understand! It's just that I never had to download Discord for anything.

I agree it's difficult. I've had success showing keybase to people because of how barebones simple it is - but it's not a solution for everything of course.

[scarface_74]

> Have you ever actually tried to convince a non-technical friend or family member to use a different platform for communicating

How many non technical people have heard of Discord?

[_cenw]

Essentially everyone my age and down? I'm a late millennial.

If the number in your name is your birth year I'm not too surprised, but don't assume you can project from your own experience onto others 1:1.

[bloqs]

You clearly dont have many friends or relatives that you actually interact with

[dmbche]

I sure wonder how anyone interacted with friends and family before discord eh?

[1shooner]

This isn't compulsory, it's just personally beneficial. There are plenty of beneficial contexts you need to opt into, and include some cost or compromise.

[rjsw]

I have a mobile phone SIM which only provides customer support over WhatsApp.

[scarface_74]

Someone is forcing you to use Discord? An app that I personally have never used?

[_cenw]

You are rude enough that I'm tempted to say "OK Boomer" because you clearly are a different generation with no insight into mine.

[scarface_74]

So is there now a law saying that you must use Discord?

[_cenw]

I'm flagging this, this must be trolling.

[hiatus]

So what you're really complaining about is that other people will not follow your choices. If your relations have such a hard line that a single app is "the only way to interact with certain groups of people", they are the ones to blame, not the maker of the app.

[throwmeback]

I'm afraid life (at least mine) is way more complicated than that.

[idiotsecant]

>attacks upon his honour and reputation

Yikes, seems like this is built to keep people from saying things about powerful people that they don't like.

[schnuri]

It’s just that there was a time in Europe (about 80 years ago) when among other cruel things, the honor and reputation of a lot of people were actively destroyed for arbitrary reasons.

[callalex]

Can you clarify what you are talking about?

[indymike]

>> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation

If I cannot attack the honor and reputation of a person, and by extension, artificial person like a corporation, what good is freedom of speech? How can I call someone out for being a scammer, or for doing horrible things? How does one seek public redress of a grievance against a company, or an agent of the government? Does arbitrary apply to timing, or the circumstance? Who is the arbiter of arbitrary? This is not a human right. It is a nice tool for a tyrannical government to strip away rights from people. Oh, you've violated Mr. Arresting Officer by accusing him of falsely arresting you. Now you get to deal with the false arrest and a human rights crime. Likewise, Ms. Bought a Mansion with Public Money can no longer be accused because she has a human right to not have to trifle with public accountability.

[rlpb]

Arguably it's not the voluntary downloading of an app that's the problem; it's the mandatory government imposition of privacy interference across all apps.

[glimshe]

I think that the problem is that Meta has normalized this violation so it doesn't feel like a big deal. It feels watered down even for someone like you who appears to be very aware of the problem.

It's like exploited workers and people living in quasi-slavery, many of them don't understand their rights and "voluntarily" waive them. My parents didn't really understand the implications of "voluntarily" accepting Meta's privacy statement - once I explained it to them, they were in complete horror.

[hanspeter]

Meta already have Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp in compliance with EU legislation.

Threads is not an attempt to push spyware on users, that would be incompliant in the EU. (And what is this spyware you believe is in Threads?) More likely they know exactly how much work it entails to be compliant and they decided to initially skip the EU market to speed up their launch.

[throwaway1777]

I don’t think it’s because of not wanting to preserve privacy I think it’s because it takes a shit ton of time to comply with all the orders the EU has pinned on them.

[schnuri]

It takes a shit ton of time if to weasel around the GDPR if your business model is to collect as much personal data as possible.

[krschultz]

Threads is already GDPR compliant, that's not the only regulation the EU has made that covers these kinds of apps.

[whimsicalism]

EU DMA and I don't think it really has to do with privacy at all.

[Joeri]

And in even more fairness, privacy was not the reason Threads didn’t launch in the EU. It is in violation of the digital markers act, not GDPR. The leveraging of market power in one platform to boost another platform is what is at fault, and seeing the meteoric rise of Threads on the back of Instagram’s popularity the stratagem worked.