Can WhatsApp Stop Spreading Misinformation Without Compromising Encryption? (qz.com) 149
"WhatsApp, the Facebook-owned messaging platform used by 2 billion people largely in the global south, has become a particularly troublesome vector for misinformation," writes Quartz — though it's not clear what the answer is:
The core of the problem is its use of end-to-end encryption, a security measure that garbles users' messages while they travel from one phone to another so that no one other than the sender and the recipient can read them. Encryption is a crucial privacy protection, but it also prevents WhatsApp from going as far as many of its peers to moderate misinformation. The app has taken some steps to limit the spread of viral messages, but some researchers and fact-checkers argue it should do more, while privacy purists worry the solutions will compromise users' private conversations...
In April 2020, WhatsApp began slowing the spread of "highly forwarded messages," the smartphone equivalent of 1990s chain emails. If a message has already been forwarded five times, you can only forward it to one person or group at a time. WhatsApp claims that simple design tweak cut the spread of viral messages by 70%, and fact-checkers have cautiously cheered the change. But considering that all messages are encrypted, it's impossible to know how much of an impact the cut had on misinformation, as opposed to more benign content like activist organizing or memes. Researchers who joined and monitored several hundred WhatsApp groups in Brazil, India, and Indonesia found that limiting message forwarding slows down viral misinformation, but doesn't necessarily limit how far the messages eventually spread....
This isn't just a semantic argument, says EFF strategy director Danny O'Brien. Even the smallest erosion of encryption protections gives Facebook a toehold to begin scanning messages in a way that could later be abused, and protecting the sanctity of encryption is worth giving up a potential tool for curbing misinformation. "This is a consequence of a secure internet," O'Brien says. "Dealing with the consequences of that is going to be a much more positive step than dealing with the consequences of an internet where no one is secure and no one is private...."
No matter what WhatsApp does, it will have to contend with dueling constituencies: the privacy hawks who see the app's encryption as its most important feature, and the fact-checkers who are desperate for more tools to curb the spread of misinformation on a platform that counts a quarter of the globe among its users.
Whatever Facebook decides will have widespread consequences in a world witnessing the simultaneous rise of fatal lies and techno-authoritarianism.
In April 2020, WhatsApp began slowing the spread of "highly forwarded messages," the smartphone equivalent of 1990s chain emails. If a message has already been forwarded five times, you can only forward it to one person or group at a time. WhatsApp claims that simple design tweak cut the spread of viral messages by 70%, and fact-checkers have cautiously cheered the change. But considering that all messages are encrypted, it's impossible to know how much of an impact the cut had on misinformation, as opposed to more benign content like activist organizing or memes. Researchers who joined and monitored several hundred WhatsApp groups in Brazil, India, and Indonesia found that limiting message forwarding slows down viral misinformation, but doesn't necessarily limit how far the messages eventually spread....
This isn't just a semantic argument, says EFF strategy director Danny O'Brien. Even the smallest erosion of encryption protections gives Facebook a toehold to begin scanning messages in a way that could later be abused, and protecting the sanctity of encryption is worth giving up a potential tool for curbing misinformation. "This is a consequence of a secure internet," O'Brien says. "Dealing with the consequences of that is going to be a much more positive step than dealing with the consequences of an internet where no one is secure and no one is private...."
No matter what WhatsApp does, it will have to contend with dueling constituencies: the privacy hawks who see the app's encryption as its most important feature, and the fact-checkers who are desperate for more tools to curb the spread of misinformation on a platform that counts a quarter of the globe among its users.
Whatever Facebook decides will have widespread consequences in a world witnessing the simultaneous rise of fatal lies and techno-authoritarianism.
So much energy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People will always find a way to spread misinformation but right now there's not many ways to easily send fully encrypted messages.
I know which way this one should go.
The big problem is private conversations (Score:4, Insightful)
We can monitor IM. And with modern AI we can easily mass monitor phone conversations.
But private conversations are still a dangerous source of misinformation.
The good news is that phones let us know were people are at all times and so who is talking to whom. The irremovable battery, always on feature allows us to monitor conversations held near the phone. The few conversations that are not held near a phone are then red flags that focus further investigation.
So I am confident that we will soon be able to finally stamp out all fake news.
Yours,
Minstey of Truth
Re:The big problem is private conversations (Score:4)
Indeed. I suggest that the Post Office starts screening private mail for misinformation as well. Excluding marketing, ofcourse.
Re:The big problem is private conversations (Score:4, Funny)
careful, people might not pick up on the satire and take this is a blueprint for further encroachment by the surveillance state.
That said this entire topic is a giant wtf. why is it a platforms job to manage their user's inability to practice common sense and critical thinking in the first place? We're currently walking a very thin line between 'conspiracy theory', 'misinformation' and having an opinion that differs from the hive mind. If you're truly worried about gaslighting and misinformation, just turn on CNN, they do it 24/7, and have a much wider audience.
That's the question, not the answer (Score:2)
The question is not whether to stop free speech. The answer to that would indeed be easy.
The question is how to reduce the amount of bullshit without undue burden in free speech. That's a much more difficult question. Their current approach, and Facebook now does something similar, is to control the rate at which new messages can be forwarded to huge numbers of people. That gives a few hours for the truth to catch up to the latest rumor.
Very clever people might come up with more and better ways mitigate th
Re: (Score:2)
But, you seem to imply, that bullshit is not protected free speech itself? (at least in the US)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, if free speech didn't apply to bullshit, that would be easy - ban bullshit. It's precisely BECAUSE the first amendment protects speech which the administration calls "bullshit" that we have an interesting problem.
What's challenging is protecting free speech (including bullshit speech), without becoming a nation of idiots that believe all kinds of stupid rumors.
In fact, one could well argue that the entire PURPOSE of the first amendment is to protect speech that the politicians don't agree with. The
Re: (Score:2)
All these platforms spend so much energy attempting to treat the symptoms rather than the underlying disease.
Well, the problem is that the disease is not treatable. There will always be quite a few people that try to elevate themselves by claiming others are inferior. Ever seen a black racist or a female sexist? That makes it pretty clear this is a universal problem. Then there are the conspiracy theorists. They also think they are superior, because they think they know some really important truth that most people are unaware of or too stupid to see. Then there are the assholes that are just aggressive and destruc
Re: (Score:2)
Because the underlying disease is people blindly believing what they read rather than properly fact checking for themselves.
The established media don't want to treat the underlying disease, because they have been using it to their own advantage for years. What they want, is to return to a state where only the select few are able to exploit the disease.
If you solve the underlying problem, and people actually check properly before believing something, then the media lose their influence.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot to capitalize Final Solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> what is the final solution My Führer, are you suggesting...
Having just watched the 2000 miniseries on the Nuremberg trials starring Alec Baldwin, this was the first thing that came to mind. 0 ___ 0
Re: (Score:3)
Headline should read: (Score:5, Insightful)
I never thought I'd see the day when large numbers of people are forbidden from communicating. Truth or fiction, it doesn't matter. Free speech is free speech and it shouldn't be able to be censored. Welcome to our Orwellian present.
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought I'd see the day when large numbers of people are forbidden from communicating. Truth or fiction, it doesn't matter.
It's important to remember that your right end where mine begin. In this case of WhatsApp, your rights end where WhatsApp's begins. For better or worse they are not obligated to send messages, despite the fact that they are a messaging platform. You are free to shout your message but nobody is compelled to listen or rely your message.
You may not like it but just because you have free speech does not negate the rights of others to ignore you, selectively or completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Headline should read: (Score:5, Informative)
IM platforms are not considered a"utility" and thus are not regulated as such. Hell, an internet connection isn't even considered a utility. I'd be more than happy to back your right to spout off BS over IM when it's considered to be a utility.
Until then, it's up to corporations what you can and cannot say, where you can and cannot go and what you can and cannot read. If I recall correctly, you were against net neutrality, so perhaps you only have yourself to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
IM platforms are not considered a"utility" and thus are not regulated as such. Hell, an internet connection isn't even considered a utility. I'd be more than happy to back your right to spout off BS over IM when it's considered to be a utility.
And when politicians utilize that not-a-utility in order to manipulate the masses, your stance on this becomes less and less favorable. The real question is when will these services be evaluated as actual utilities? Will we ignorantly wait until it's far too late to have that discussion, after certain flavored biased corporations own everything?
We shouldn't even be here talking about the risk to encryption with a service that advertises itself as such. If you have a problem with misinformation, wise up
Re: (Score:2)
Will we ignorantly wait until it's far too late to have that discussion, after certain flavored biased corporations own everything?
That's how it's looking with Republicans refusing to pass net neutrality. You can't talk about IM platforms being utilities without the pipes that move them being utilities.
If you have a problem with misinformation, wise up and get less stupid friends. That's the simplest answer.
My problem is not "stupid" friends, my problem is "stupid" opponents. If you do not share a common reality then you cannot have a civil conversation about politics. Try having a conversation with a Qanon fanatic and you will be unable to connect on the most basic level.
Re: (Score:2)
Will we ignorantly wait until it's far too late to have that discussion, after certain flavored biased corporations own everything?
That's how it's looking with Republicans refusing to pass net neutrality. You can't talk about IM platforms being utilities without the pipes that move them being utilities.
If you have a problem with misinformation, wise up and get less stupid friends. That's the simplest answer.
My problem is not "stupid" friends, my problem is "stupid" opponents. If you do not share a common reality then you cannot have a civil conversation about politics. Try having a conversation with a Qanon fanatic and you will be unable to connect on the most basic level.
Your problem, is far more widespread than you think. Of course it's senseless to talk to a Qanon fanatic. It's equally as senseless to talk to a snowflake who can't come out of their cry closet. Neither side, shares a common reality. That is exactly why we're here discussing the impact of encrypted platforms on society. Society, is the problem at this point, whether you believe it or not. Few want to accept that, because they usually realize they're part of the overall problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's equally as senseless to talk to a snowflake who can't come out of their cry closet.
I know the qanon people are detached from reality because they believe there is a global conspiracy of pedophiles that are intertwined with politics. Could you describe the issue with "snowflakes"?
Neither side, shares a common reality.
Then we should be addressing the reason for that.
That is exactly why we're here discussing the impact of encrypted platforms on society.
Actually, the topic is stripping misinformation/disinformation from a messaging platform.
Society, is the problem at this point,
You say that but the issues with a lack of a shared reality are correlated with the rise of disinformation. This isn't the first time this has happened either, so there is ple
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly why we're here discussing the impact of encrypted platforms on society.
Actually, the topic is stripping misinformation/disinformation from a messaging platform.
Actually, the topic is the amount of tools we have in society. Not the tool a lot of them use.
Society, is the problem at this point,
You say that but the issues with a lack of a shared reality are correlated with the rise of disinformation. This isn't the first time this has happened either, so there is plenty of evidence pointing to disinformation as being the culprit that is dividing people from reality.
The solution is simple: remove sources of disinformation and regain a shared reality. Censoring an IM platform is a mitigation tactic that will do little because it's not the source, it's just a mode of propagation. Frankly, none of this would even have been considered if sources of disinformation weren't so prominent.
The solution is far from "simple" when the problem is that widespread. This isn't a matter of shooting down the planes dropping disinformation leaflets over the city and calling the problem solved. This is more akin to you pointing to the email spam valve to turn it all "off". Again, it's not that simple, and you know it. The problem with perpetuation is also the entire reason I say that "society" has a problem,
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is far from "simple" when the problem is that widespread.
It's actually really not. All that needs to be done is make it illegal to profit from the willful dissemination of disinformation/misinformation, even indirectly. For each violation a fine is imposed and it grows larger for the next violation.
The problem isn't fly-by-night operations, the problem is established outlets that knowingly profit from disinforming people under the guise of entertainment. It was only after the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine that things once again spiraled out of control.
Yo
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is far from "simple" when the problem is that widespread.
It's actually really not. All that needs to be done is make it illegal to profit from the willful dissemination of disinformation/misinformation, even indirectly. For each violation a fine is imposed and it grows larger for the next violation.
The problem isn't fly-by-night operations, the problem is established outlets that knowingly profit from disinforming people under the guise of entertainment. It was only after the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine that things once again spiraled out of control.
You're going to say, "blah blah blah ministry of truth" but really it will be the courts that decide if it's a violation.
It's not a perfect solution but it is a good solution.
How well did fines work after the 2008 financial meltdown? How many laws have we imposed (or re-imposed) since that time to prevent it from happening again? How many other established outlets been caught in massive scandals, only to pay slap-on-the-wrist fines that were pre-calculated to find out just how profitable the criminal behavior really is?
In the entire history of Too Big To Fail mega-corps, there has never been a punishment that has turned out to be an actual deterrent. Your suggestion hasn't ev
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...the far left is *against* megacorps deciding our lives for us.
The far-left doesn't exist inside the US. Seriously, you need to take a look outside US borders.
Why aren't you fighting on the side of the little guy?
Because you can't have it both ways. You can't say businesses own something and then have the state decide what they can do because that's authoritarianism. The only time this is allowed is when it's decided by regulation which is narrow and specific.
You're speaking truth to the powerless.
Not at all. I'm speaking truth the people who voted for this and now have buyer's remorse.
Re: (Score:2)
You've made your bed and now it's time to sleep in it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are too many IM platforms, all of them are controlled by someone and are generally isolated from each other. You end up running 20 different IM apps depending who you need to communicate with, which is a ridiculous situation. Central systems also allow for centralised monitoring, censorship or blocking.
We need a decentralised system, like email or the phone network, where you can have one account using the provider of your choice (or being your own provider) and the client of your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like SMS? Which has no encryption and none of the features expected of a modern system. Oh, and many of these alternative "over the top" services only even exist because greedy telcos price-gouged on SMS for way too long and thus created the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
SMS has no encryption by default, but also nothing to stop users who are concerned about privacy using encryption over the top of it and just using SMS to transport the ciphertext.
But yes, too much price gouging is what caused people to seek alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether a monopoly communications platform or any platform which obtains a government level of control and power has the right to refuse to selectively refuse to relay messages for reasons other than continuity of service is questionable.
Whatsapp is Facebook and Facebook is a monopoly communications platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then you have to legally declare them a monopoly and legally declare them a common carrier or such. Until then, they're another company with their own rights on what they transport.
You can look at the history of the phone company, which included at one point the American government nationalizing them to enforce the equivalent of net neutrality, then re-privatized them with conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
WhatsApp can't be trusted. The guy who made the platform gave up millions in Facebook stock as a PR stunt with the sole purpose of making sure everyone knew that Facebook had made changes that screwed over the users.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want free speech, you have to censor it. [wikipedia.org] It's just another paradox, like spending money to make money!
Re: (Score:2)
If you want free speech, you have to censor it. [wikipedia.org] It's just another paradox, like spending money to make money!
Yes. But it must take significant effort to censor, so it can only be done for really problematic things and certainly not on mass-scale. The problem is not censorship. The problem is universal, low-cost censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there obviously need to be limits to free speech. But what must never be easy is imposing these limits and it must be impossible to do on mass-scale.
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought I'd see the day when large numbers of people are forbidden from communicating.
You'd probably never thought you'd see a world where you can instantly speak to millions of people all at once. In a world where words reach further those words need to be used with more care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm assuming you're a democrat leaning type, which means your favorite pastime is pushing to change the constitution to make the US more European
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Cognitive Dissonance is one hell of a condition.
Re: Headline should read: (Score:2)
Was there another riot inside the US Capitol?
I mean if there was a riot _inside_ the White House, that's just another riot too? How's the Capitol less significant?
Re:Headline should read: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny because the guys who stormed the capital probably care about the constitution way more than you
Attempting to overthrow the rightfully elected government is a weird way to show their love for the constitution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you know anything about US history you would know how wrong you are
So are you gonna teach me, or just sit there hurling platitudes all day?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no that doesn't ring a bell. I mean, I know what you are referring to, but that was overthrowing the rules and leadership of one government to institute a brand new one. If that's your analogy of choice, would you not agree that overthrowing the British rule of the colonies was indeed a weird way to show love for British law? It seems to me if you apply that to January 6, you'd see in this case the protesters were attempting to overthrow the government and rip up the constitution. Maybe they'd leave the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I always bring pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, zip tie restraints, stun guns, and a gallows when I ask for my transparency.
Re: (Score:2)
They care more about what they think it says, but not enough to comprehend it
Re:Headline should read: (Score:4, Insightful)
Care about it, sure. Understand it, not so much. That first amendment in question means the government can't throw you in jail for your ideas, or publishing them. That's free speech. They confuse it with freezepeach, which is when private entities are required to promote your ideas that they don't want to be associated with.
An autist (or a high school graduate) would immediately grasp this distinction, which is borne out of a basic understanding of the text. A Freezepeach Warrior, on the other hand, arises from a deep sense of entitlement: "You have to agree with me."
Self-righteous asshole != autistic asshole
Re: Headline should read: (Score:2)
the guys who stormed the capital probably care about the constitution way more than you
Like a guy that punches his wife in the face and says nobody loves her more than he does, their word is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least their [washingtonpost.com] version [politico.com] of it, anyway.
But remember, the Constitution was intended to eliminate the need for such recourse to arms [archives.gov]. So either the Constitution failed us, or the insurrectionists had no moral standing. Or possibly a little bit of both?
Re:Headline should read: (Score:4, Insightful)
How much of America *IS* left if we have people monitoring our personal private conversations for inaccuracies and "inaccuracies"?
Imagine it, you're talking to someone the phone and suddenly you hear a couple crackles and a beep, then a lady with a vaguely southern accent comes on and tells you off for mis-reporting something you saw on the news last night.
That sounds more like something out of an Orwell rip-off than it does the United States or any other free society.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't what is scary. That is 1984 scary. In the 2024 version of scary the content is "corrected" in flight in a deepfake transliteration faithful both in voice and measure, even if the content was live video.
Re: (Score:2)
So if, for example I WhatsApp you some misinformation such as this [wikipedia.org] or this [amazon.com] or perhaps this [bbci.co.uk] It can be flagged as mis-information or like Wechat, the message can just not be delivered [bbc.com] at all. Perhaps (strictly for quality assurance purposes, of course) it will send telemetry indicating that a hash match occurred.
That is a little better, but I'm not sure how much. I absolutely do wish people wouldn't forward a bunch of actual mis-information (unless it' s prefaced with something like "can you believe people ac
Re: (Score:2)
There's misinformation and then there's "misinformation". Kinda like back in the '90s when various net nanny software was big. Funny thing, sites critical of the net nannies ended up on the block lists. Those sites were the only ones with all blocking categories checked (violence, drugs, porn, language, etc.). Famously, Godiva Chocolates [godiva.com] found it's way to the block lists as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... she was in the same city. She might even have been able to see the asses of the people entering the capital building from her window.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're facing a basic self-contradiction (Score:3)
They created this all based on the ideal that their creation must enable absolutely unfettered communication, because that had to be good. They are now finding out that this means they can't say, "Well, absolutely unfettered communication except for this."
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, absolutely unfettered communication except for this."
Nope. Try again. They are saying absolutely unfettered communication, just a bit slower and with more purpose. "Communication" is not the endless forwarding of spam and shit. WhatsApp are not blocking anything based on content.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'll give. How do you prevent people from being "able to say what they like" without mass surveillance?
Re: (Score:2)
Well you could just download a list of banned words and then have the app locally apply them before encrypting the message. Or do it the other way around, have the app drop messages containing words when they arrive.
Many many years ago I discovered that you could type things in to the game International Karate +, and various things would happen. Entering a swear word would produce a warning, second time reset the game. So I'm sure this method works because my Amiga didn't even have a modem connected to it s
Re: (Score:2)
That can elminate the naughty words. But that's not what they're talking about. It can't filter out posts about how the Democrats stole the elections, or about how vaccines are a plot to microchip us all so we can be tracked, or about how liberals are child-abusing cannibalistic cabal.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said elsewhere, that's as simple as having a banned URL list and banned image hash list.
Not perfect but quite effective.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how those could be anything more than slight inconveniences to those spreading misinformation.
No and no (Score:5, Insightful)
It has absolutely no place in any way shape or form ever for any reason ever reading and modifying messages, unless you want to live in CCP controlled China or (slightly less oppressive) a modern version of Fascist Italia.
It's not Zuck's place to decide what is true and what is false, and what can be said in private discussions behind closed doors and what can't. FUCK OFF, cryptofascists
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. (Score:2)
Whatsapp is not an arbiter of truth, it's a fucking IM app.
It has absolutely no place in any way shape or form ever for any reason ever reading and modifying messages
WhatsApp is part of a publicly traded corporation. Public traded corporations are compelled (by their board members) to ensure the stock value is not negatively effected (or stock holders can vote them out). If it were to get out that people were killed because people were spreading lies on WhatsApp, it could damage their stock price. This gives them plenty of reason to not send messages that are determined to be false.
Before you accuse me of creating a strawman argument, I would point you to the Indian [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The situation in india was due to rumours being spread between groups of individuals. The method used for communication is not really relevant, they could just as easily have used SMS, email, voice phonecalls or even face to face communication.
Re: (Score:2)
that is part of the problem, the double standards
Re: (Score:2)
we already know more people have died due to facebook and its subsidiaries than parlar but somehow only parlar got shut down.
Facebook has it's own datacenters and relies on nobody. Parler relied on AWS for hosting and got booted of the platform. Parler didn't get shut down, they got booted off AWS.
that is part of the problem, the double standards
The two sites are not comparable on any level. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just one problem, they didn't get shut down, they got booted off AWS. Check it out, Parler is back online. As I already pointed out, Facebook has it's own datacenters and therefore zero reliance on AWS.
So tell me, what could anyone do to Facebook that would be comparable to what was done to Parler?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatsapp is not an arbiter of truth, it's a fucking IM app.
Yet somehow tech companies the world over have to keep explaining this to India. Again, and again, and again.
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't: He's deciding when YOU can lie to other people. Yes, that's still a problem. No, someone has to reduce the power of internet fuckwads and shitty policy, such as blocking mindless repetition of lies, is the only answer available.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatsapp is not an arbiter of truth, it's a fucking IM app.
Indeed. And it continues to be just a fucking IM app going forward. Zuck is very much on your side and of your opinion. So why do you attack him? Is it because you can't RTFS?
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about this the other day.
People in the West think that 'fake news' is something new.
I grew up in the developing world. News was just rarely something 'factual' from an authoritative source. It really was just word of mouth and who you trust and your alliances. This doesn't mean people didn't care about truth. Of course most people thought they were telling the truth. Yet, who could actually know the truth?
The truth is so unknowable. Some village attacked. Who did it? Why did they do it? Some g
Uhhh...isn't the point of encryption? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW what is with Slashdot's gigantic boner for censorship?
Most (I believe) Slashdot users have always been anti-spam.
Double Trouble (Score:2)
though it's not clear what the answer is
If you think it's not clear what the answer is, you should try to figure out what is actually misinformation!
Like at the start of the pandemic, would you be blocking suggestions everyone wear any mask if they can instead of just n95, because that was position advocated widely [time.com]...
Maybe just let people pass around information, and over time what is misinformation will become very clear.
Client side filtering (Score:2)
The answer to how to do this without the encryption is that they have to implement client side filtering. And you don't want the client sending any of it to the server for verification. That means they have to implement some sort of fingerprinting algorithm, so that they can just send a database of fingerprints to the client. Make it a little more complex than that and call it AI if you'd like, but that's about their only hope. If google can do it for music identification, and the Android camera apps "playg
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, that was supposed to say "without SACRIFICING the encryption"
"Inconvenient Information" (Score:2, Troll)
"Misinformation" is information that is inconvenient to someone. It may be true, it may be false, it could be sort of both. But someone has decided it is inconvenient for people to hear it, so it is labeled "misinformation". That's simply a convenient way to make it "desirable" for make it go away.
The real question here is, "Can [INSERT APP NAME HERE] make people think they're safe because of claimed end-to-end encryption, while not actually giving them that safety?"
You cannot monitor the content of communi
Speed of a phone tree (Score:2)
No one, by the way, was clamouring for the phone company to be monitoring, ascertaining the truth of, and censoring the content of these calls.
Whatsapp with forwarding-throttling as described seems pretty similar i
The premise has it all wrong. (Score:2)
Dark Matter isn't Real (Score:2)
Did Slashdot censor me for wrongthink?
Oh, right, laziness is a virtue.
Related: Are you still beating your wife? (Score:3)
Asking if X will stop doing Y when X didn't do Y in the first place is so stupid that I feel like I lost IQ points just reading about it.
*PEOPLE* spread misinformation. Some of those people might happen to use WhatsApp. Full stop.
WhatsApp is about as guilty of spreading misinformation as our ancestors that invented literacy in the first place.
Biggest source of "fatal lies" (Score:3, Insightful)
Last year the biggest such lie was the "systemic racism", which.
You know, it is a lie, because its proponents claim, that denying it is evidence of it being true [diverseeducation.com]. It was not just George Floyd, earlier lies about Michael Brown's "hands up" [washingtonpost.com] and George Zimmerman being a racist [businessinsider.com].
Other ignominious mentions go to:
The term for those, who invent, spread, and believe such lies is Blue Anon (don't look for it on UrbanDictionary [thepostmillennial.com]) — and they aren't spread by WhatsApp. They are spread by the "established" newspapers.
Privacy purists??? (Score:2)
The app has taken some steps to limit the spread of viral messages, but some researchers and fact-checkers argue it should do more, while privacy purists worry the solutions will compromise users' private conversations...
So the proponents for more corporate based censorship are "researchers and fact-checkers" while the proponents for privacy are "privacy purists"? Nice framing.
Maybe they should be labelled "privacy fundamentalists" next time?
Yes (Score:2)
For example Whatsapp does a lookup when you post a link. You paste the link and a moment later it is augmented with a thumbnail of the article / video it points at. The software obviously has the potential right there to flag misleading / false content as it does this. In addition, when somebody receives
Call them what they are: Censors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fact-checkers who are desperate for more tools to curb the spread of misinformation = Censors. Lets nor beat around the bush here. They are censors who are trying to control the public narrative.
The free dictonary defines a censor as:
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Fact checkers on the other hand are people who are authorized to examine communication and suppress it only if it is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
"The right side of history" (Score:3)
There has never been a period in human history where the side that burned books, censored information, punished, forbid or prevented people for speaking were "the good guys". Never.
There cannot even be such a thing as "misinformation" unless there is a central, unified, authoritarian dogma that defines true and false. This would then be the one and only source of "truth" in the system it encompasses, becoming for all intents and purposes an infallible entity, exactly like the pope in former times. Ex cathedra.
Just another example of how people will recreate religious movements again and again whenever they lacked one.
answer to all headlines that ask a question (Score:2)
For future reference, here is a link to the answer for all headlines that ask a question:
http://no./ [no.]
"WhatsApp isn't censoring people enough, and why t (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forwarding a message usually implies forwarding the whole message object... Not just the text content inside that object. So even if the server only sees that text as ciphertext, there may still be metadata in the headers that could identify the forwarding.
Re: (Score:2)
You claim this is an XKCD strip. However, this is not a link to XKCD.com. Why would you not link to the original script which provides better credit to the author, ability for other people to start perusing XKCD if they don't already and isn't a JS and Ad festooned place like imgur