Cab you envision systemic reasons that lead to Whatsapp's users using the software without trusting Meta?
I get my internet through Comcast or AT&T. I certainly don't trust either.
I don't think most of us are driven by this. We care about user rights and good software.
> it's not all about the tech.
We agree. It's all about politics.
> telling them we know better because we have been indoctrinated by recruiting evangelists of an extremist ideology
Caring about having control on one's computing is not extreme.
> moderate free software
What is moderate free software? Having access to the source code but not too much? Being able to modify but just a little? Being able to redistribute but to a limited number of people? Being able yo use it but only for a restricted set of goals decided by the software provider?
The idea that free software is extreme needs to die.
I fail to see what you are actually proposing and what drives you.
Thanks for asking. My postulate would be having access to binaries.
You can achieve the four user freedoms with binaries to some extent. Mathamtically Freedom(source)>freedom(binaries)>freedom(SaaS)
You can use software for any purpose with a binary. You can study software, although in a less efficient manner, with a (complete, offline) binary. You can modify the software with a binary! You can share software with a binary.
To give a concrete example, Users can share WhatsApp, if a user doesn't have Whatsapp, it sends a link to their phone through SMS to download the application , you can also share the installer files on desktop. The right to share is not infringed. That said, you are not allowed or empowered to modify Whatsapp. This is a distinct type of partial freedom which is easier to concede, that some of the freedoms can be infringed. Whereas the stronger claim above is that even a single freedom can be partially fulfilled.
I think that's my motive, to recognize that WhatsApp isn't the Devil as a 0.5 star rating would suggest. Extremism goes even against the very goals of the ideology, as it's very hard to take seriously if it requires so much dedication and extreme stances, it's much easier and reasonable to ignore free software than it is to accept is tenets completely or moderately. Make it more moderate and achieve more penetration.
More penetration of something which has lost its substance seems useless.
I would say if WhatsApp is a good baseline for you w.r.t freedom, there's nothing more to do: any gratis software does the job, and most software is already gratis. You get Big Tech-controlled users with ad and tracking-ridden software, and you seem happy with this.
You are probably not even allowed to share WhatsApp binary (likely disallowed by the EULA), and as for studying the software, you are probably not allowed to disassemble the binary (also prohibited by the EULA). It's as non-free as it can get. There's also nothing moderate about disallowing these things.
I don't see anything to be happy about in this deal.
The meaning you have of moderate is "please don't alienate Big Tech and force them to let users have the minimal control of their computing". Poor Big Tech, I feel for them. Yes, that's not a nice thing to say, but you are calling perfectly reasonable, non-violent, harmless opinions "extreme". I hope you reconsider.
>Whatsapp has gained the trust from billions of users
Bear in mind what Brian Acton said ("It's time, delete Facebook"). If billions of users trust it it might be because they're not aware of the shell games they pull https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=25662215
Claiming the platform is responsible for the actions of their users is a bit too much, I oppose to that kind of thinking.
Have you heard about net neutrality?
Regarding the responsibility for user actions. I'm assuming you'd think the same of Facebook in the cases of Myanmar and the Trinidad Tobago cases? I was just trying to hold the original article in estoppel without espousing a specific view, I think it's nuanced with a lot of grey areas.
Absolutely yes, I can say that, because the answer is to pay for unlimited service, not having some websites having free traffic and pay through the nose for all others.
And whatever Meta is doing, will prevent this unlimited service, where I can download 20GB each day and my bill stays the same.
Radio and TV neutrality was a hot political topic at the time as well, the incumbent government was pro-intervention and regulation, so that helped. But the FSF had a big impact, going as far as getting Linux to be installed as a dual boot in state sponsored Notebooks for Kids programs.
The good thing is that the field is a bit more open if anyone wants to dethrone whatsapp, but since they were first movers and they have the network effects now, it seems like almost inconsequential, a contender could have negotiated zero-rating with a carrier anyways and work up from there.
But I think that there's room for nuance, sure it's closed source and a closed garden, but that's precisely what allows it to be gratis and free of spam (you can't build the client, you can't build a spamming client)! Sure it's controlled by an entity that may or may not use that data for ads. But it's metadata and not content, sure the NSA or some three letter agency may tap it for national security reasons(or at least masquerading as natsec reasons), but not even subfederal law enforcement and courts can access the contents of the message (E2E encryption).
The contributions of Free Software has been unquantifiable, but if it continues to treat all closed source things as equally bad, then you get extremism. Surely there's a difference between an entity seeing metadata, and an entity seeing message contents, this is a non trivial distinction.
Congratulations to signal if they develop an algorithm where they can't even see the metadata, but I'm not even convinced that it's good? The article cites cases of Meta products being used for malicious purposes, at least we hear from them? At least Zuck shows up against the senate to answer when shit hits the fan, if Signal is used in other parts of the world to organize coups or ethnic cleansing, you just would never hear about it because it's all super anonymous 5 stars, but ethically they would still be contributing as much as Facebook or Whatsapp.
And on that topic, I don't think overfixating on Meta's role in a multi actor causal chain to be very productive? I think it comes more of a place of Free Software developers being jealous that they didn't win the popularity contest, and less from a place of genuine concern. I used to be anti Whatsapp too, but at some point I realized that 1B users have as much say in what technologies we should use than developers, it's not all about the tech. Whatsapp has gained the trust from billions of users, ignoring them and telling them we know better because we have been indoctrinated by recruiting evangelists of an extremist ideology is not the way forward. I do believe in moderate free software and Whatsapp is one of the lowest hanging fruits to accept in the path to moderate FS