Of course we shouldn’t trust anything blindly, but we also need to use common sense. Have we seen proof that what’s claimed to be true is in fact true? No. But it might be true, and it’s consistent with what Meta would do. So if your cautious minded, you should assume it’s true for now while you go through the next few years of your life waiting for discovery.
If companies are lying in their advertising to the general public, then that is something the companies are responsible for. You can blame the victims, but that’s kind of stupid because there are so many people in the world who are not technically savvy. They don’t have the resources, background, knowledge, and skills to evaluate whether what the company is telling them is true. That’s why there are laws designed to protect consumers from lying companies.
Would it be great if everyone was an expert in everything? Yes. Are they? No. They never will be. That’s why we have laws.
It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. It looks like the claims are based on specific aspects of California law (put simply: wiretapping, privacy, and deceptive business practices). Do they have a strong case? I don’t know, not worth my personal time to research state law on these issues.
Is there enough to go to court? Certainly the lawyers think so, and I agree. If Meta is claiming E2EE (which it is) and then immediately undercutting that by re-transmitting large numbers of messages to itself (which is alleged), that sure feels deceptive to me, and it’s easy to think that a jury might agree.
What benefit? Seriously, what benefits are you actually talking about?
Maybe they exist in niche areas, like improved translation software or some such thing, but maybe that’s just normal “use computers better” technological advancement and not actually anything magical.
Oh my friend, stereotyping is kinda ridiculous. You have no idea what other people know unless you talk to them.
It is interesting to see his reaction to reality. He finds out that people think he’s peddling bullshit, and instead of asking why they think that, he dismisses them as irrational… That’s one way to run a company, but only if your company has a monopoly and customers can’t run away even if they want to.
What you’re positing here is a view of life that Margaret Thatcher loved. The idea is, “There is no society. There are no laws. There is no oversight. Everything, all responsibility, all of it is 1000% individual.”
Of course in reality that’s nonsense. We live in a world with laws that are sometimes enforced, where governments sometimes protect us, because we want them to, because that’s good for us all.
But even if you believe in Thatcher’s view, then you have the problem of corporations. You can’t seriously argue that we should be responsible for everything ourselves, as individuals, and also that corporations should exist, because they are anti-individual.