Yep, if you want to go with privacy first, then make web interface and let us believe that you at least try to make it privacy friendly by allowing more user control and strict sandboxing.
There are anti-patterns in many websites to make people to use native apps - simply because it is easier to collect more user data.
Thats because its mobile-first! Like 2016! The founders and their stakeholders all agreed, trendy! Like in 2016!
Like Yo! But Hello, but spelled the German way Hallo! and because there already is a social network (and mobile app) called Hello, and other communications apps called Hello, and its also cool to mispell startup names, a web 2.0 staple, like last decade!
I use it to share certain activity photos with a small group who aren't on Insta/F (like me). For that, it's great. No expectation that it'll be around forever -- it's just real time photos of us on vacation in a way that doesn't bombard Messages.
Ah, ok. So then the question becomes "why not Mastodon/Pixelfed/Pleroma", especially now that they are implementing "private group" functionality and you can choose who gets to see your posts (besides the usual public/followers-only/private message)?
I’ve thought of standing up my own private mastodon, but asking these people get mastodon accounts for this single use case isn’t really what any of them want. We’re all social media averse, and mastodon is still like a twitter. hallo is private/closed by default and allows for signals and comments.
Tip: it's not an official grammar rule, but in colloquial terms, scare quotes [1] are often used to indicate that the speaker is being sarcastic or that the quoted thing isn't actually true. So a typical American reader might infer from your title that this app is not _really_ "private" or "free".
the bbc usage is scare-quote-adjacent, they mean "this is not us saying this, it is someone else who said it and we are reporting it verbatim" (implied: we make no claims as to its accuracy)
I think OP intended to use them in the same way. I can find a direct reference to "private" and "no ads" on the landing page, "free" is not written anywhere so that's a miss.
In the headlines. The journalistic use of scare quotes around single words in headlines is so they can trumpet claims without taking legal responsibility for them.
They are more commonly used just to communicate to the reader about which part of the headline is paraphrased and which part is not. A subject’s diction can be very important in many news stories and so quotations of this type can communicate a lot of information in a short headline. It also indicates when a phrase is not editorial in nature, but a claim made by someone else.
Language is dynamic and flowing and changing, and it's going to be whatever it is no matter how angry it makes you. Better to go with the flow than to scream into the wind. Is "fuckwits" proper English? Who cares?
There is language changing with the times, and then there is people changing language just because they figure they should/can.
I have no issue with the prior. My issue is with the latter.
And anyone who speaks the language or uses it on a daily basis has all the right in the world to judge the misuse of it. If you have a problem with this, then please stop talking all together, because your opinions are worthless. It is not the random idiot who gets to decide how the rest of the world shall use a language when the rules are already set beforehand by previous people who created those rules via the long process of natural change; not the short process of morons making things up to please themselves.
Have a nice day.
P.S. Before asking stupid questions about words like fuckwit, maybe do yourself a favor and look them up. I wasn't sure what colloquial meant, so I did exactly that before typing my comment. You should have done the same. You would have found out it's a legitimate word, to some extent at least more than the 'rule' of using "" improperly.
Fuckwit: a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse).
Oxford also has a definition of "scare quotes", e.g. "quotation marks that a writer puts around a word or phrase to show that it is used in an unusual way, usually one that the writer does not agree with" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...) or "Quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/scare_quotes). M-W does too. Cambridge Dictionary too. Quotation marks. Not just "air quotes" or "italics" or "/s" (in what universe does one think "/s" is more proper English than "scare quotes"?).
So. What's the problem, again? This is well enough established for Oxford, and seems to have only been a huge surprise to you.
(Edit: per MLA, the term was coined in 1956, but the use of punctuation in such a manner can be traced back to the second century BC. https://style.mla.org/scare-quotes-origins/ Fun fact!)
If people say it, and other people understand what is said, then it's acceptable, correct English. End of story. "English as she is spoke", as Mark Twain put it. The dictionary is defined by how people speak, not the other way around. There is no arbiter of the English language, nor should there be. Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Urban -- they're all just snapshots of a language that has no real rules besides "if it sounds right, it's valid".
Scare quotes are absolutely valid English, because people use them. They are used to signal sarcasm or disbelief.
I'm going to assume that you are having a bad day or your comments were simply flamebait, in either case -- I hope you feel less angry soon and enjoy the rest of your day.
Preface: I'm done with this community and am just replying to you one last time cause you at least seem half reasonable at worst, and fully reasonable at best.
Enjoy your long read I guess. Note, you should try to mentally project someone just explaining their views onto these words. They are not written with any intent of vehemence towards you. Since people on the internet tend to project false intent onto words due to lack of a person to see/hear/etc... I am saying this in advance for you.
Without further adieu.
----
Right, well I used to agree with this notion, once upon a time ago.
But then people started to just decide that words mean new things because they want to be correct without having to try at all.
And I won't allow that. No one should. That's why I care, because these "scare quotes" as you all call them, are a relatively new thing that only just arose in my viewing of it. Before this, the last time I heard of this at all, it was some pissed off university students foaming at the mouth about stuff that didn't make any sense. Not going to be direct about what, because that's not the point of the convo right now. The point is that they were being silly, and changing definitions just to suit them. Something I have seen younger folk trying to do more and more over time; and I blame the education system for never properly teaching them how the language works in the first place.
And I'm not alone. My English may not be perfect of course, but my English teacher for the final years of my time in high school was the type who gave ZERO fucks about your opinion about how the language operated; cause she was a professor in university prior to returning to teaching high school English. Why did she do this?
Because she was finding that the students getting into University weren't being taught properly at all. And when she met some that came from her old town, and they were some of the worst... She retired and went back to teaching English in high school.
So again, I'm not alone in this. That's why I can take the die on this hill king of stance I am taking. Because yes, some of you like yourself mkaic are actually kind of right.
But because people who are wrong about so much else will use that to defend their erroneous ways, I cannot allow it on any good moral level when it comes to ensuring that information can always be understood by each other when communication is key.
It's like the okay sign. It was never an right wing symbol when I was growing up, but now because some university students say it is, now it is?
Fuck that. I used to use the okay sign to indicate I was fine with something without having to open my mouth. Or a thumbs up in other cases worked fine as well.
Personally, I'm waiting for them to try to claim that thumbs up are a sign of male sexism next. Why? Cause a thumb in erect position resembles a penis in erect position. With a big ball sack.
If you think I am kidding. I'm not. I fully expect one of those fuckwits to try this some day. And they will use the exact same kinds of arguments to declare that the sign has changed in definitions, and thus they are valid and the rest who are not what they claim; are not. Just like you are claiming in how English works, because according to your logic as I see it right now, mass opinion = correct; and that's just wrong.
Yes, you are right that over time this is how it works. But it's not something that people just decide one day and then suddenly it is so.
Also, because words are ultimately symbols in letter form, even hand signs get the same treatment in a way, hence my use of it as an example. In case you were wondering how we got to hand signs and stuff in all of this.
Long story short, I'm part of the other side of the fence that says "No, you may not misuse my language just to suit yourself." There is room for creativity in making new words instead. Or even new punctuation if need be. Our keyboards could use some key sw...
I don't know if the submitted title ('Like Facebook, but smaller and “private” and “free” with no “ads”') was intended to be sarcastic, but since the OP itself does not include that language (with or without quotes), we've changed it above to something it does include.
Just took a look at the landing page, but I didn't see any information on how they expect to monetize the app. Are they going to charge for it?
I'm fine if they are charging it, but all the problems with social media are pretty much a direct result of their business model. So putting out something that is free, without an explanation of how they eventually expect to pay for it all, is not something I would trust.
Based on this [1] article, seems like they add subscription later.
I have also seen some mentions about paid features, so maybe subscription unlocks them.
> We use your phone number to connect you with friends and family. Beyond that, we never collect, store or use any personal information and never show you ads. Never. For real.
From their homepage. Contact Info and Contacts sharing are inherent to this app, it seems. It's worth noting that "beyond that, we never collect [more personal information]" is pretty clearly incorrect, since they do at least also collect contacts.
Their Privacy Policy[0] also does not inspire confidence:
> We may share personal data we get with service providers who help us provide our Services
We're not selling your data, we're sharing it.
Which service providers? What are their policies around my data?
> We may transfer your personal data to service providers, advisors, potential transactional partners, or other third parties in connection with the consideration, negotiation, or completion of a corporate transaction or proceeding in which we are acquired by or merged with another company or we sell, liquidate, or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets
We're not selling your data, we're transferring it.
This clause esp. makes me loath to sign up, since all this good will around privacy protections goes away in a sale. Given that this was made by WhatsApp devs, perhaps they understand the value of data...
> We're not selling your data, we're transferring it.
To be fair, if they get purchased or otherwise change hands, you'd want the data transferred and not deleted or siloed so it can't be used for its intended purpose.
> in which we are acquired by or merged with another company or we sell, liquidate, or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets.
This reads to me like "if we or our product become part of something else, that something else is now us".
Only the most aggressive reading... "we sell... all or a portion of our assets" can be read as them selling your data for profit. Does that mean they won't? No, but the terms look like they're either hiding it well or it isn't their intention.
I don't have great trust in tech companies, but I have some faith when the marketing is predicated on privacy, that a sale would ruin their reputation.
I don't see that as an "aggressive" interpretation of the words – that's the actual provision in the policy. There's a lot in that sentence, let's reduce it to the relevant stuff:
> We may transfer your personal data to [third parties] in connection with... a corporate transaction or... we are acquired by or merged with another company or we sell, liquidate, or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets
I don't understand why a company preaching privacy wouldn't want to show good faith by making an ironclad privacy policy around the same.
The first example that came to my mind is that they share the data with AWS. Nowadays it's pretty normal to use other people's computers to run your service.
My phone number is definitely not my "most prized privacy info." If it was I'd be in trouble because there are all sorts of transactions, both digital and analog that require giving a phone number. At least in the US, if you refuse to give anyone your phone number, you'll have a hard time living a normal life.
And you compare to Signal, which also requires your phone number, and uses it as the primary identifier.
How are they going to address the problem of connection creep? (Over time the number of people you add to your friends network increase and cause context collapse)
Terrible name, but good idea. However, the ecosystem for social media apps is so polluted (just open any app store and see all the "social media app" spam) that gaining any sort of market share is likely not possible.
No web, no thank you! I'm tired of these mobile-only apps like Snapchap and the likes! I want to be able to move from one device and another without having the phone always in my hand!
63 comments
[ 6.7 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadWhich is a deal-breaker for me.
That said, is anyone here actually using HalloApp? If so, what are your impressions so far?
There are anti-patterns in many websites to make people to use native apps - simply because it is easier to collect more user data.
Like Yo! But Hello, but spelled the German way Hallo! and because there already is a social network (and mobile app) called Hello, and other communications apps called Hello, and its also cool to mispell startup names, a web 2.0 staple, like last decade!
> in a way that doesn't bombard Messages
I'm pretty sure that you can just mute notifications from WhatsApp/Telegram/Matrix/XMPP/Messenger-du-jour...
It's open social media based on XMPP, you can set up your own server if you want.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Like ‘Disaster left “devastating” path of destruction, says mayor’
I have no issue with the prior. My issue is with the latter.
And anyone who speaks the language or uses it on a daily basis has all the right in the world to judge the misuse of it. If you have a problem with this, then please stop talking all together, because your opinions are worthless. It is not the random idiot who gets to decide how the rest of the world shall use a language when the rules are already set beforehand by previous people who created those rules via the long process of natural change; not the short process of morons making things up to please themselves.
Have a nice day.
P.S. Before asking stupid questions about words like fuckwit, maybe do yourself a favor and look them up. I wasn't sure what colloquial meant, so I did exactly that before typing my comment. You should have done the same. You would have found out it's a legitimate word, to some extent at least more than the 'rule' of using "" improperly.
Fuckwit: a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse).
You can thank Oxford for this, via google.
So. What's the problem, again? This is well enough established for Oxford, and seems to have only been a huge surprise to you.
(Edit: per MLA, the term was coined in 1956, but the use of punctuation in such a manner can be traced back to the second century BC. https://style.mla.org/scare-quotes-origins/ Fun fact!)
Scare quotes are absolutely valid English, because people use them. They are used to signal sarcasm or disbelief.
I'm going to assume that you are having a bad day or your comments were simply flamebait, in either case -- I hope you feel less angry soon and enjoy the rest of your day.
Enjoy your long read I guess. Note, you should try to mentally project someone just explaining their views onto these words. They are not written with any intent of vehemence towards you. Since people on the internet tend to project false intent onto words due to lack of a person to see/hear/etc... I am saying this in advance for you.
Without further adieu.
----
Right, well I used to agree with this notion, once upon a time ago.
But then people started to just decide that words mean new things because they want to be correct without having to try at all.
And I won't allow that. No one should. That's why I care, because these "scare quotes" as you all call them, are a relatively new thing that only just arose in my viewing of it. Before this, the last time I heard of this at all, it was some pissed off university students foaming at the mouth about stuff that didn't make any sense. Not going to be direct about what, because that's not the point of the convo right now. The point is that they were being silly, and changing definitions just to suit them. Something I have seen younger folk trying to do more and more over time; and I blame the education system for never properly teaching them how the language works in the first place.
And I'm not alone. My English may not be perfect of course, but my English teacher for the final years of my time in high school was the type who gave ZERO fucks about your opinion about how the language operated; cause she was a professor in university prior to returning to teaching high school English. Why did she do this?
Because she was finding that the students getting into University weren't being taught properly at all. And when she met some that came from her old town, and they were some of the worst... She retired and went back to teaching English in high school.
So again, I'm not alone in this. That's why I can take the die on this hill king of stance I am taking. Because yes, some of you like yourself mkaic are actually kind of right.
But because people who are wrong about so much else will use that to defend their erroneous ways, I cannot allow it on any good moral level when it comes to ensuring that information can always be understood by each other when communication is key.
It's like the okay sign. It was never an right wing symbol when I was growing up, but now because some university students say it is, now it is?
Fuck that. I used to use the okay sign to indicate I was fine with something without having to open my mouth. Or a thumbs up in other cases worked fine as well.
Personally, I'm waiting for them to try to claim that thumbs up are a sign of male sexism next. Why? Cause a thumb in erect position resembles a penis in erect position. With a big ball sack.
If you think I am kidding. I'm not. I fully expect one of those fuckwits to try this some day. And they will use the exact same kinds of arguments to declare that the sign has changed in definitions, and thus they are valid and the rest who are not what they claim; are not. Just like you are claiming in how English works, because according to your logic as I see it right now, mass opinion = correct; and that's just wrong.
Yes, you are right that over time this is how it works. But it's not something that people just decide one day and then suddenly it is so.
Also, because words are ultimately symbols in letter form, even hand signs get the same treatment in a way, hence my use of it as an example. In case you were wondering how we got to hand signs and stuff in all of this.
Long story short, I'm part of the other side of the fence that says "No, you may not misuse my language just to suit yourself." There is room for creativity in making new words instead. Or even new punctuation if need be. Our keyboards could use some key sw...
Like Facebook, but smaller and private and free with no ads.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm fine if they are charging it, but all the problems with social media are pretty much a direct result of their business model. So putting out something that is free, without an explanation of how they eventually expect to pay for it all, is not something I would trust.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/19/22584551/halloapp-private...
* Contact Info
Phone number (your most prized privacy info). This is a FULL-STOP right there in these days and ages.
* Contacts
Contacts (your entire address book, who would want to pull down the proverbial pants and leave their derrière exposed and tangle with the wind?)
* Identifiers
User ID (probably your Apple ID, after sufficient reverse mapping).
* Diagnostic
Crash data, not hard to get even more relational mapping from this.
############# # Signal
Compare that to SignalApp:
* Contact Info
That is entire optional and can be left blank within the Settings->Contacts->My Card of which that should always be blank.
Nothing to see there, move along.
From their homepage. Contact Info and Contacts sharing are inherent to this app, it seems. It's worth noting that "beyond that, we never collect [more personal information]" is pretty clearly incorrect, since they do at least also collect contacts.
Their Privacy Policy[0] also does not inspire confidence:
> We may share personal data we get with service providers who help us provide our Services
We're not selling your data, we're sharing it.
Which service providers? What are their policies around my data?
> We may transfer your personal data to service providers, advisors, potential transactional partners, or other third parties in connection with the consideration, negotiation, or completion of a corporate transaction or proceeding in which we are acquired by or merged with another company or we sell, liquidate, or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets
We're not selling your data, we're transferring it.
This clause esp. makes me loath to sign up, since all this good will around privacy protections goes away in a sale. Given that this was made by WhatsApp devs, perhaps they understand the value of data...
[0] https://www.halloapp.com/privacy/
Not necessary to have a phone support (such as your entire address book/contacts or your identity/MyCard) fot social indexing in these days and ages.
As Signal App have adequately demonstrated that.
To be fair, if they get purchased or otherwise change hands, you'd want the data transferred and not deleted or siloed so it can't be used for its intended purpose.
> in which we are acquired by or merged with another company or we sell, liquidate, or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets.
This reads to me like "if we or our product become part of something else, that something else is now us".
Only the most aggressive reading... "we sell... all or a portion of our assets" can be read as them selling your data for profit. Does that mean they won't? No, but the terms look like they're either hiding it well or it isn't their intention.
I don't have great trust in tech companies, but I have some faith when the marketing is predicated on privacy, that a sale would ruin their reputation.
> We may transfer your personal data to [third parties] in connection with... a corporate transaction or... we are acquired by or merged with another company or we sell, liquidate, or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets
I don't understand why a company preaching privacy wouldn't want to show good faith by making an ironclad privacy policy around the same.
Hmmm what is that supposed to mean? If they're sharing it they're doing it for a business reason right
But their privacy policy says something different.
And you compare to Signal, which also requires your phone number, and uses it as the primary identifier.
... well until we need to make money, when we will sell all of that to someone.
Former Facebook, WhatsApp employees lead new push to fix social media - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31267218 - May 2022 (155 comments)
also: https://twitter.com/neerajarora/status/1521964283466113024