I don't use any messenger apps, but I work in AdTech. Just curious, what exactly are you trying to hide? What kind of information is being shared by WhatsApp?
Not really trying to hide as such, but I did become a father recently and my wife and I use WhatsApp to communicate with health professionals and sometime send sensitive images of our son what we would not want views by anyone else.
I don't know. Do you? The terms and conditions say they do it for "operating and providing our Services". It's vague on purpose.
And it's not only FB, it's their "business partners" (read it as: whoever pays us) too.
"As part of the Facebook family of companies, WhatsApp receives information from, and shares information with, this family of companies. We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our Services and their offerings. This includes helping improve infrastructure and delivery systems, understanding how our Services or theirs are used, securing systems, and fighting spam, abuse, or infringement activities. Facebook and the other companies in the Facebook family also may use information from us to improve your experiences within their services such as making product suggestions (for example, of friends or connections, or of interesting content) and showing relevant offers and ads. However, your WhatsApp messages will not be shared onto Facebook for others to see. In fact, Facebook will not use your WhatsApp messages for any purpose other than to assist us in operating and providing our Services."
So, I took a look. You said that they share the contests of your messages. Looks like that's simply wrong.
Messsages
"We do not retain your messages in the ordinary course of providing our Services to you. Instead, your messages are stored on your device and not typically stored on our servers. Once your messages are delivered, they are deleted from our servers."
Photos
"When a user forwards media within a message, we store that media temporarily in encrypted form on our servers"
Automatically Collected Information
Usage And Log Information, Device And Connection Information, Location Information and Cookies.
What am I missing? What exactly is WhatsApp doing wrong? Once again, I hate shady shit, but I'm not seeing anything crazy in here.
"The information we share with the other Facebook Companies. includes your account registration information (such as your phone number), transaction data, service-related information, information on how you interact with others (including businesses) when using our Services, mobile device information, your IP address, and may include other information identified in the Privacy Policy section entitled ‘Information We Collect’ or obtained upon notice to you or based on your consent."
All in all, nothing special. Nobody shares your messages/media.
The very block of text you quoted is terrifying for me.
Why am I getting the impression there is no convincing you about how bad for our privacy this is?
Because half of what you said is wrong. Your original message states that WhatsApp shares contents of your messages, your location, photos of your kids, etc with third-parties.
> The contents of my messages, photos of my kids, who I talk to and when, my location. Is that enough for you?
Look, this is simply not truth. You are ex-aggregating things and create a panic out of nothing. If you don't like them knowing your location, fine, turn Location Services off. As for media, nobody cares about photos of your kids. It's a not monetizable content.
Are you serious here? Working in AdTech - which does (or at least should) translate to "working on undoing the good which used to be the public internet" - you most certainly realise, and possibly salivate over the breadth and width of Facebook's means to profile 'net users, whether those be actual Facebook (as in "Facebook the site, Instagram, WhatsApp and whatever other company they reeled in") users or otherwise. For those who want to keep their exposure to AdTech as small as possible it is adamant not to feed the beast if this can be avoided. That means not using any of their products and blocking access to any of their properties. It means not believing a word of what Facebook says about keeping WhatsApp apart from their other properties as they have shown time and again that they can not be trusted - something which is endemic when it concerns anything related to AdTech, probably because the lure of all that user data just waiting to be exploited is simply too big.
While this might not work as an argument to convince friends and family to stay away from Facebook (et al) it is the actual reason for doing so. It is just that the argument smacks too much of politics and zealotry to get people to change their ways.
To answer the original poster's question I'd suggest to simply use something else and give those friends and family your contact info on that other thing. There are plenty of options out there, all with their own pros and cons. The easiest sell will probably be Telegram since it offers a far superior user experience over WhatsApp, especially for those who use more than a single device. That this implies that Telegram stores user data and as such theoretically could do all sorts of nefarious things with it is just as interesting to the average user as the fact that Facebook will have been abusing WhatsApp data for years now, most people simply don't care. Telegram now also offers video calls by the way which takes away the last advantage WhatsApp had.
I am 100% serious. I get the "ad-free public internet" nostalgia, but ads is an inevitable component of our economy. The good old internet was good only because it was something new and unknown. The very first newspapers did not have ads. 100 years after, Benjamin Franklin pulled the trigger and started a column for advertisers to promote their products and services. Ads are valuable. They can make a huge difference for your business. Ads are not going anywhere in the near future.
Working for AdTech doesn't mean undoing the good. Given that the internet is pretty young, there is nothing to undo. Working for AdTech means improving what's already out there.
Don't get me wrong. I hate ads. Who doesn't? Everyone in AdTech uses ad blocker, such is life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But, every time I launch a new project, I need some form of advertisement. It can be be Show HN, Product Hunt or Google PPC. But I need ads. You need ads. And if you don't need them now, you most likely will in the future.
I obviously don't know everything about AdTech and I'm sure there are a ton of shady players, exploiting your software/hardware to sneak some ads in (reputable firms do not appreciate such behavior). But from what I do know, the kind of data being shared by apps is so boring that it's actually in a user's best interest to allow the data to be shared. Otherwise doctors will see ads about vaping and fishers will see ads about the latest JavaScript IDEs. Which is why I asked, what exactly is being shared by WhatsApp? I honestly don't give a shit about Facebook knowing my gender, age, the city I'm from, etc. I'm 34, male, living in New York. Now what? In contrast, if WhatsApp shares your messages and files with third-party companies, then that's for sure a shady shit that affect your security. A whole separate conversation.
Ads and personalized ads are two very different things. Duckduckgo works fine on the former.
Personalized ads put you into an information buble, collect your personal data and manipulate you into buying what you don't need, harming you and the environment. See also: https://www.socialcooling.com/.
Reputable AdTech firms is comparable to responsible tobacco firms, both are peddling unhealthy goods, both try to whitewash their image by claiming to be above the fray. Also, it's actually in a user's best interest to allow the data to be shared. Otherwise doctors will see ads about vaping and fishers will see ads about the latest JavaScript IDEs - no, just no. First of all I can only assume that doctors are more likely to read publications which are related to their profession and as such can be targeted for advertising there, just like fishermen will read publications related to fishing and as such can be targeted. Ads on Javascript IDEs belong in publications related to programming, ads about vaping belong in the dustbin or, if you insist, in lifestyle magazines and similar vacuous outlets. There is no need to follow those doctors around to pester them with ads related to their profession when they turn to the daily news, just like those fishermen don't need to be targeted when they happen to open an unrelated site. In short, there is no need for active profiling. Since AdTech insists on doing this anyway it is in users best interest to a) make sure there is as little data to be gathered by AdTech firms and b) to make sure they don't see any ad, period. You - as in the AdTech industry - made your bed, now lie in it.
> In short, there is no need for active profiling.
Active profiling is needed so that tobacco ads do not show up in your kids' newsfeed.
> b) to make sure they don't see any ad, period.
Nobody likes ads, but there are millions of businesses with ads being the only revenue source. No ads - no service. It's not because site owners want to show you ads, it's because they cannot sustain without not showing you these ads.
> Active profiling is needed so that tobacco ads do not show up in your kids' newsfeed.
Apart from the targeted ads there exist context-based ads (just like in the newspapers from your example). Show me a scientific proof that the former work better.
> Active profiling is needed so that tobacco ads do not show up in your kids' newsfeed.
Tobacco ads should only be in publications targeted at tobacco consumers, i.e. "Smokers Digest" or whatever. Yes, that limits their exposure. That is a feature, not a bug.
On the "no ads, no service" remark I know of plenty of useful sites - this one being one of them - which get their funding from different sources. For some - me being one of them - this probably goes for the majority of sites they frequent, others might fare differently. The thing is, it is not just the fact that there are ads which turn people to ad blockers, it is the fact that there are those AdTech companies doing their best to syphon up their data so as to badger them with ads wherever they go. Had ads been like they were in magazines, i.e. anonymous and related to the subject matter, there would have been far less incentive to block them. That bird has flown a long time ago though, something for which AdTech is partly responsible next to the fact that ad servers have been used to spread malware and that the ads themselves went from simple banners to screen-dominating blinking screeching monstrosities.
> it's actually in a user's best interest to allow the data to be shared. Otherwise doctors will see ads about vaping and fishers will see ads about the latest JavaScript IDEs
Who the hell do you think you are to decide what is in my best interest? You are attempting to STEAL my attention. This is abusive behaviour. I don't want this!
Also:
If I go on a page for fishing stuff, the shop is free to advertise certain fishing stuff products they want to push. ON THEIR PAGE. They do not need external content tracking people to the dog food page to show them the fishing ads there too. You don't need any data for that and nobody would block ads like that because they'd be part of the content of the fishing stuff store.
You are telling a story which is based upon lies you hide behind this what you are not telling AND YOU KNOW IT! You are one of those shady players and you've shown it RIGHT HERE.
> I'm not deciding anything for you. I can only recommend. You either share your data or you don't. It's your decision.
I may decide because I know how ad-blockers work (and even there it drips through as you must know best) but most out there don't decide. They are being robbed along the way without even knowing it. You rob them of their data, their attention and divert it afterwards for your profit. You're being paid to make this crime work.
> Of course they can do so. Except the times when they want to maximize their ad revenue, so they sell the ad slot to other companies.
And how is the fishing shop becoming an ad reseller something that would make your point above valid? Your attention rape has nothing to do anymore with me getting fishing stuff which I've been looking for. The purpose completely switched over to third parties. Meaning your employee and the shop proprietor sharing the profits of this crime. Completely unrelated to the products the shop sells.
Don't you think you should blame the shop owner and not the ad company in this case? At the end of the day, it's the shop owner who came to us, not we came to them.
