Yikes.
“Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend’s Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don’t know why.
Zuck: They “trust me”
Zuck: Dumb fucks.“
How the fuck did Harvard students act so stupid and give out their info like that? I thought they were like the smartest people in the US. 🤔
Most Harvard students are still just 18-22 year old “kids”. Think of how dumb/naive you were at that age.
Try telling that to a 18-22 yr old. You think you know everything at that age. Then you get older and realize no one knows any fucking thing
To be fair, when you’re at that age and come into contact with dozens of “adults” that never mentally grew past 12, you’re bound to think you’re “very smart”.
Yea except I know I know everything so I’m built different
There’s a reason second-year students are called sophomores. It’s a compound with the same roots as “sophisticated” and “moron”. It literally means “learned idiot”. It’s referring to the students who have a year of schooling under their belt, and think that they understand everything about the world. It’s basically referring to the Dunning-Krueger Effect, where people who know very little about something are the most likely to overestimate their knowledge on the topic.
As a 21 year old I would be offended but then I remember I just admitted my exact age on the internet
Oh don’t worry, I’m still in that age range, I guess I’ll find out how dumb I am in a few years from now. 😅
You don’t get any smarter, just wise enough to know how dumb you are.
Nah, it’s just the kids of the wealthiest people and a handful of diversity admissions.
This is still I think the most telling glimpse into who the “ZUCK” really is. Looking at what meta has become, how it has operated… No matter how professional and respectable he acts.
This is who he really is.
I don’t it’s a fair assessment - dude was just a kid.
I’ve watched some podcasts and interviews and I think he’s a much more complex of a person. I do genuinely think he’s thinks he’s doing good and I do think that Meta stuff is a net benefit to the humanity.
Even if you hate Facebook it brought people together in so many places, especially if you consider developing world.
I do genuinely think he’s thinks he’s doing good and I do think that Meta stuff is a net benefit to the humanity.
The problem I see is that you’ve bought into his lie. He might “sound” genuine in thinking he’s done good, much like Bill Gates sounds genuine when he talks about his philantropic shenanigans. It’s all an act.
The only net benefit I see off FB/Meta is that it taught us how dangerous and shitty a centralized internet is.
Doing good does not absolve you of having done evil.
Zuck has utterly failed in preventing facebook from doing clear, preventable, harm.
I don’t get to walk free, no matter how many homeless people I feed, if I kill one.
The same should go for corporations. If they do evil, once, they should done. Not fined. There is no math which makes the bad that facebook does, necessary to achieve the good it does.
The same should go for corporations. If they do evil, once, they should done.
You kinda just gutted 99% of corporations. And done overall nothing for society because they already all reopened under different names.
Why are you assuming the legal framework for ending corporations couldn’t have mechanisms to prevent that?
For example, offending corporations could be broken up, and have their assets sold to their competitors. The resulting money used as severance for the employees, who didn’t necessarily do anything wrong.
A company can’t just “start back up” if you take all their capital. And no-one would re-invest in people known for taking legal risks that might make that investment go “poof”.
And 99% of corporations wouldn’t be evil if it wasn’t fucking legal, and basically required to compete!
I don’t think it’s even legal to give away a company’s assets without their consent, be they criminal or not.
And anyway, that’s easy to get around that too. Full of companies that already “”“go bankrupt”“” to avoid paying their due and then reopen with money magically appearing from “somewhere”. In the end to me it just seems the more rules/laws you add, the more the average person will suffer because of it while not really causing any for assholes.
“This thing would be illegal” is a pretty shit argument when changing the law is on the table.
And I see you’re a fan “anti-regulation” ideals. Did it occur to you that this system could entirely replace a shitload of micro-managing bs current regulation? And did you miss the part where re-investment in criminals wouldn’t be a thing if it was that expensive? The only reason it happens right now is because it is technically legal, and cheap.
Have you watched ‘The Social Dilemma’?
Facebook actively promotes things that will make you scared and angry, because those are the emotions that drive the most engagement and get the most clicks.
This is a reminder to lemmy users, that this new meta expriement will use the ActivityPub protocol, meaning that it can interact with other lemmy instances, please urge your lemmy instance admins to de-federate from this crap as soon as it launches!
But why? Isn’t the whole point of federation that we can interact with people in other communities? Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub? Completely walling them off seems counterproductive
Not defending Meta, just curious
there is a very good chance that this project by meta is the thin end of the wedge
(edited to include “the blogpost”, link here)
Interesting and I’d say you’re right. If you were to see a mass adoption of the fediverse (such as Twitter imploding and mastadon becoming the replacement) there would be an immediate attempt by the big tech players to gain control of it in some way. And this is exactly how they would try to do it.
Also here is a blog post about how Google killed the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) using extend, embrace, extinguish.
What’s the alternative? They go with a non activity pub system and woo away all our users anyway?
realistically, yes :(
opinion time: not everything has to be about fast/unsustainable growth, in the pursuit of profit. i would prefer that the fediverse grows organically, and entices quality users, posters and commenters to join based on the merits of the service, and not on it’s access to inflated VC budgets, huge advertising campaigns, and exploitation of a first-mover advantage.
facebook/meta will slay us, because we are a threat to it’s profit model. why are we even contemplating negotiations with a tiger while we have our head in it’s mouth? it beggars belief…
I feel like there’s no winning if you’re a dev at one of these companies. Go with a centralized protocol, you get shit for creating a walled garden. Take part in federation, and people give you shit for that too. I think it’s genuinely amazing that we are seeing engineers that have made some of the most fundamental software that the internet runs on dip their toes into federation.
i don’t blame the devs, in the same way that you can’t blame a cog in a machine. it’s the machine that i’m complaining at here, not the devs
historically, big tech companies have exploited their dominant position to snuff out federated protocols in the past. why would they suddenly choose to take a sweet tone to fediverse/activitypub now?
meta has a few options here for Threads, i will list some routes:
- co-operate fully with activitypub forever and ever, always in alignment with activitypub protocol, always does the right/moral thing, makes a meager profit and growth for doing so
- all of option 1, but then after building up user lock-in and momentum, then start adding “meta-net” exclusive features to entice users to instances under their control. wait patiently until dominant market share established, and then stop federating outside of meta-net, to force non users to switch over. make a bigger profit and growth.
- all of option 2, but also compete with fediverse using the strength of it’s inherited capital from meta, to gain market share quickly. bribe and buyout instances to join meta-net through sheer weight of money, send frivolous lawsuits/dmca to crush the dissenters. astroturf comment sections on non-meta instances to sway public opinion. harvest all data from activitypub to keep shadow accounts on non meta-net AP users. make even bigger profit and growth
the machine is obviously going to take option 3 here. i feel sorry for the devs, who know full well that what they make can and will be used in this way.
If people want to crawl back into Meta’s clutches I’m not going to stop them. Don’t give the one nice thing we have to a corporation that only wants to exploit us.
Are you telling me this perfectly human looking human shouldn’t be trusted?
Who cares? I’d rather they stay away from here anyways.
Is there a fediverse version of Facebook?
Very roughly,
Lemmy and Kbin = Reddit
Masterson = TwitterSo what equals Facebook
Friendica
I think Diaspora* is the federated FB alternative
There was also a crypto backed and “freeze peach absolutist” alternative, Minds, dunno how that one’s going
Diaspora as said was it long ago. Nowadays I guess the Movim project based on xmpp can give and experience similar to it.
Presumably Facebook’s move into ActivityPub is to prevent or limit users moving to a decentralised alternative to Facebook?
Presumably Facebook’s move into ActivityPub is to prevent or limit users moving to a decentralised alternative to Facebook?
Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub?
No. We don’t. The more hands they have in the fediverse pie, the more influence they have over it. The more influence they have, the more control. The more control, the more at the whim of their decisions you are. The more at the whim of their decisions, the more power they have over you.
This should be common sense at this point.
I don’t see how it would be possible to stop them to be honest.
You may be right - perhaps it’s inevitable, one way or another. I don’t know.
I’m passive at this point.
IMO this is such a shortsighted take and defeats the point of federation because of a knee jerk response.
There is the potential for federation to grow massively with the injection of billions from big tech.
There is the potential for federation to grow massively with the injection of billions from big tech.
Sure, of course it would grow. But at what cost? And then who effectively owns it in the end? There’s an inevitable outcome - one that you apparently aren’t aware of.
My take is that we should defederate them so that they don’t become the de facto instance in the Fediverse. That way, the Fediverse remains what it is now—open and truly decentralized. By defederating and discouraging them, we’re signaling to potential new users that they’ll be stuck in their own bubble.
Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub?
I certainly don’t. I abandoned Facebook years ago because of how BS they were getting with privacy concerns and social manipulation. Last thing I want is to bring those dumpster fires here. They join the platform, I will migrate to whichever Instances defed them or leave Lemmy entirely if necessary. Simply put, it’s been a breathe of rational, civil air here. While it is early days keeping that hostile-to-humanity crap out of here is obvious minimum we should be doing.
We want individuals to adopt ActivityPub. Whether that be in the form of hosting new instances or contributing content. We don’t want corporations here trying to turn it into something they can use to make a profit. Once it becomes about the money it is on a death spiral like everything else before it.
Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub?
No. We don’t. The more hands they have in the fediverse pie, the more influence they have over it. The more influence they have, the more control. The more control, the more at the whim of their decisions you are. The more at the whim of their decisions, the more power they have over you.
This should be common sense at this point.
I don’t even know if I disagree with “big platforms” using activitypub. Like Tumblr integration could be cool, but fucking facebook? Eww
Were talking about meta here, this is a bait and switch attempt (I see it that way)
They launch their new twitter competitor, everyone moves over to their new twitter clone, they will try and hold the power on standarts of federation (like any big tech corporation that has a smaller rival that succedes more then them, see microsoft vs netscape for refrence)
If they will fail with that, they will try to seduce lemmy and mastodon instaces with monetization and big money handouts, were talking about facebook here after all, they are not short of scummy tactics
Yes. Three words: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”
A pratice as old as time, done and proved to work. It’s not even theoretical, it’s gonna happen. You either are proactive in protecting the network or we will be too late to do anything. Always works like that. If you think that giving the benefit of the doubt and wait and see is an option, then you already lost.
I’m don’t know how the federation protocol works exactly, but I’m pretty sure Meta can throw more resources into it than all the independent instances combined. Again, I don’t know anything about the specifics of the fediverse so I don’t know if that applies here, but generally once you control more than 50% of something that does not have a central authority - you became, de facto, that central authority.
There is incentive for competition from Google, Twitter, etc, that would cause federation as a whole to grow without resulting in a single authority taking over the network.
Another really big concern I have is that activity pub by definition shares all your posts with any instance that hosts your followers. So if you have a mastodon follower on FB’s activity pub/twitter replica, FB automatically gets your data even though you don’t use it
The type of things they get are
- Your profile
- Whatever you post
- Who interacts with your posts
If they can embrace and extend the fediverse you know they’re gonna extinguish it, too. They’re s bad faith actor, we don’t want them interacting with us or influencing us.
I don’t understand why people call Facebook Meta now
I don’t accept that name
It’s Facebook
I believe they actually changed their corporations name to Meta. As crazy as that rebranding is.
They did indeed, but I hate them so much I will never abide by that.
Yeah but they largely get it because the name Facebook became so toxic and poisoned and it’s probably better just to force them to have to stay in the cultural millieu as Facebook, the company that runs psychological experiments on its users and creates profiles illegally on non-users as well. That pays to be installed on Android devices and not be allowed to be uninstalled.
I wonder how long it will take to tarnish the Meta name. Assuming it isn’t already. The concept of the metaverse is a complete failure and they also never really stopped being terrible with data harvesting.
but homeboy wanting to open the fediverse to Meta really still out here like "oh, there’s nothing malicious here, not at all; water’s fine"
They could have saved time by just saying “Everything”
Or “yes, even that”
“And what, Gul’dan, must we give in return?”
“What data are you collecting?”
Meta: cue Leonidas
Crazy thought, but people don’t need Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, any Twitter replacement, etc. I.e. ya’ll don’t need ‘social media’.
You do know that Lemmy counts as social media too, right?
Meh, not really tho, it’s more like forums, instances/forums will never be as big as centralized websites for social media.
None of what you just said makes lemmy not social media.
Yeah now that i think about it, you’re right. What i meant to say was that it’s usage is not centered around micro-blogging, like what the usage of “social media” refers to.
Cake is bread but no one is making a ham and cheese with it.
Lemmy and Reddit the individual user is just that, an individual. But on these other ones, you are encouraged to be a brand. Hell, it’s almost expected. And they are just platforms of false affirmation because it’s only positive reactions.
So whole yes, this does fall under social media in a broad sense, I would argue it’s in a very different category.
Yes, and I’d also argue that we don’t “need” it. It’s certainly a good tool you can build to suit your needs/wants like news, funny stuff, etc, but we can also go without. The big difference between social media really is whether you are the product or not.
I get what you’re saying but it’s not really an impactful argument. We don’t really “need” most things (except food and water, etc.) but that doesn’t mean they have no value or don’t bring us enjoyment. Sure, we don’t “need” social media, and you could probably make a case that the good outweighs the bad, but that doesn’t mean that it has no value or shouldn’t exist. I have a lot of concerns about privacy and there’s a lot about social media in general that I think is problematic, but I also get a lot of use out of it and there are definitely benefits to using it.
People really don’t. I deleted my FB for years and quit using it. Whole time I’ve been telling people that it’s poison for your mind.
After a few years of not using it I’d forgotten that and began to wonder if it was true or if maybe it was just my mental state at the time.
Solved that question easily. Reinstated my account a few days ago to get in touch with someone and found myself creeping like I used to.
What did I learn immediately from that? It REALLY IS POISON!! It’s horrible for your head!
After going without it for a while I effectively had my “blinders” on and was only focused with my daily life. I’ve been the happiest I’ve ever been this year.
Within a half hour of browsing Facebook that peace of mind had vanished! I was once again focusing on the lives of others more than myself. I was thinking of things I could post to show that I have a “life” just like them. I checked on people who didn’t like me in the past and found myself perceiving their comments or memes they’ve posted to be about me. I thought to myself “I’ll show them, I’ll do this and this, wait until they see it!”
I also found myself feeling lessed blessed than I am. Suddenly my recent accomplishments didn’t seem so grand in comparison to all the happy pictures I was seeing. My simple life and simple job seemed like it wasn’t enough anymore. I didn’t feel enough.
I checked up on my exes, women I’ve been GLADLY apart from for years and got jealous of how well they seemed to be doing in comparison to what I had going on in life. Little things like them having a partner. This was major irony because I’ve had the chance to have these partners back and it was a hell no.
So quick. Didn’t even browse a full hour and it almost killed the peace of mind I’ve been working all of these years to obtain. I quit browsing, thankfully.
That night when I laid down, I didn’t sleep restfully. Instead of my usual happy thoughts routine while drifting out I had all kinds of negative emotions pop up.
It took me a day or two to snap out of it and focus on what I’M doing in life without the worry of others.
Being connected to others is great. Constantly comparing ourselves to others and thinking about them instead of channeling 100% of our energy into OUR lives is not good for anyone.
I feel like we just haven’t evolved to handle that properly. In a small village it’s important to keep an eye on each other and care about each other.
Caring about, comparing and keeping an eye on everyone in the entire world? No. We’re not meant for that.
What strangers are doing is knowledge I just don’t need, unless they’re posting self help videos or… anything beneficial really.
99% of the posts I saw were just “Look what I bought! Look how awesome my life is! Vacation!!!”
And people being super fake.
Fb was cool when we just posted text of how we were actually doing. I cared about that sometimes. That wasn’t detrimental to my mental health. Everyone acting like their life is perfect isn’t good for anyone bc it makes you wonder why your life isn’t that “good” not realizing you’re just not being informed of all the struggle, or luck that pays for lives that lavish.
Idk much, but I know that shit is poison And could rant about it more but… Lemmy don’t need my pants. Typo, Lemmy don’t need my pants, okay I mean rants there but pants is valid too.
Seems reasonable. Where do I put in my social security number and mother’s maiden name?
You can also include your passport ID and bank information in the “extra notes” field. Thanks for all your data! 🙏
Is Passport ID really sufficient? Might be better to just ask for a verified picture of the entire passport, gotta make sure they are who they say they are!
Insert the probe and we’ll get all that for you.
“In order to complete the sign-up process, please verify you are a human by sending us this vial with a sample of your blood”
inserts needle into vein
“This is getting ridiculous, I’ll send them my blood, and I’ll drink the verification can, but I won’t dance while doing it! That’s my line in the sand.”
reminder that tiktok was once musically which was a dance video sharing app for children
you will dance, and you will be happy
dances an angry jig while sobbing
Funny enough, you could probably edit your comment with them and it would be more secure than giving it to Meta just because lemmy has less digital footprint than the advertising list that you personal info will be added to.
I am dming you my bank login details. Thanks for your care!
Fuck off Zuck you fucking weirdo
I’ve said it here before and I will say it again: Facebook and Google’s entire approach to ads from data is based on an incorrect assumption of using enough data to build a profile on a person to predict what they are going to be interested in, when if you stop and think about it, it doesn’t make any sense: people’s needs will always change with circumstances at the time, ex. no amount of data in the world will help you predict whether I’ll want a burger or Thai food for lunch tomorrow even if you do the digital equivalent of creeping on me outside my window and digging through my trash can. If you want to know what people want to buy, why not ask them?
Unfortunately, they’ve deluded themselves for more than a decade with the lie, so now the rest of the world also think that internet ads by them actually works.
I’m not going to rag too hard on Facebook here because most thing has been said by others already, but I will say that since literally every single one of their social media product took the same approach of maximize data to sell things, why is it that they are all losing people and their most successful place at selling things is actually Facebook Marketplace?
While I hate the shady data harvesting practices of companies like Meta, I do want to play devil’s advocate here, as far as the value of data goes, if only for the sake of me understanding the shortcomings of it better. If a company were to dig through your trash can to get an idea of what you want to eat, so to speak, they’d probably find data on a history of foods you have eaten, if you’ve been interested in burgers, or any other foods you’ve been interested in. Or if you’ve been an adventurous eater in general or if you prefer to stick to variants of the same stuff you normally eat.
It may not give you a foolproof way of knowing what your next actions will be, but wouldn’t it give a company an educated guess, at the very least? Enough to improve the chances of targeted ads being more effective, as opposed to missing altogether.
If catching the user’s interest is a dice roll, then wouldn’t the data at least improve the odds of rolling a number you want?
Ok, think of it this way, if your friend ask you for a local restaraunt recommendation, would you dig through their trash to find their leftover to figure out what kind of food they like, or would you just ask them what they usually like to eat?
That’s why people went to forums like reddit for help with everything, because people helping people with volunteered info always work better than being a creep.
Oh yeah, I agree it’s more effective, by far. I imagine that’s why Google has Opinion Rewards and other companies use surveys to directly understand the needs of their customers. Though getting people in mass to volunteer that info, especially without some small profit incentive like Opinion Rewards might be tricky.
At least in the realm of targeted advertising, the closest example to user input would be when you set up an account, you’re prompted to select your interests. Like with Windows 10, when you’re setting it up for the first time, you’ll be asked about your interests, which Microsoft will then use to send ads and news pertaining to those categories.
But yeah, I see what you mean
I agree. I hate the idea of Meta or anybody having that much data on me in one place. However - - even Amazon, which supposedly has some of the most sophisticated purchase data and analytics out there doesn’t seem to be able to do anything with it. I mean, I buy a blender there and the next thing they recommend to me is… A blender. That only stops until I buy something else which they then continue to recommend more of, as if I only want multiples of the exact things I’ve already purchased. The recommendation engine is the whole point of having my data to begin with so but they seem unable to recommend anything new to me at all.
It’s like they have all this information written in front of them but they can’t read.
Amazon’s recommendation engine feels like it is still designed for media, even though they sell everything now. Buying a blender doesn’t mean you want more blenders, but buying a science fiction novel probably means you want more science fiction novels.
Ads are so backwards in general.
Why would I trust a brand just because they inconvenience me for 30 seconds before I can watch a YouTube video I’m actually interested in? Or the branding that interrupts me reading an article with a “trendy and hip”, horribly made auto-play clip that bolsters an audio volume level so high, it almost deafens me?
I almost actively avoid products that I see advertisement for on a daily basis because they piss me off so much.
I get wanting to promote your product and it’s not the company’s fault that many places aggressively spam ads in your face to nickle and dime their user base.
I really feel like ad revenue should not be based on how many ads you show, but how much return the advertiser gets. Google’s ad service has a return of about 4%, which means for every 100 bucks a company pays to Google to advertise a product, they can expect to recoup 4. I dunno how that is even worth it.
And yet, it continues… I think they’re thinking that brand recognition is all that matters and that eventually you’ll come around and get Geico or Use some product that has been assaulting you for months simply because you’ve seen it enough and it’s stuck in your mind. Honestly, I would rather have a customer associate good thoughts with my brand, but no one seems to ascribe to that thought anymore…
They can’t identify particular and specific interests, but they definitely can predict trends on consumer behaviour. I don’t think Google wants your data to predict when you will want Thai. That’s preposterous.
They are reaping billions on ad revenue, it definitely works, it won’t forever, but it does at the moment.
I agree with what you say as one aspect of it. But there could be insidious uses of your data. What if your insurance company pays a couple of raccoons to sort through your trash and find out you eat fatty burgers and fries for most meals? When the raccoons get back with that report, what is to prevent your insurance company from raising your premium since you are at risk (according to them) of a heart attack?
The issue is that while even if they build a perfect profile, they are still limited by which advertiser is paying more.
Google might know you don’t like cheeseburgers, but CheeseBurger Inc. just paid $200 million to have ads run, so you’re getting cheeseburger ads so that Google can’t report to the client that they’ve served ads.
They do their best to get your money. They monitor your past behavior to know what you’re likely to listen to in the future. For example, if you eat basic burger/fry foods, they’ll send you more ads for those types of places, but if you tend towards Mediterranean, then they will send you those places instead. As another example, dog food ads aren’t worth sending to people who don’t have dogs.
What I worry about is Alexa and the other voice boxes. Every time we talk about getting food around it, I open my phone and have ads for the places we were talking about. That’s literally creeping on someone.
no amount of data in the world will help you predict whether I’ll want a burger or Thai food for lunch tomorrow
they TELL YOU want to want. that’s why you see ads for fat juicy burgers. will everyone who sees those ads go out and get a burger? no. but a few do.
Don’t allow Zuck and the billionaire anti-democracy tech bros into Federation.
This. We’re all bashing on reddit but the reason why I went to reddit and then here was to take a break from meta-owned social media. They don’t only take and sell our data, they also exploit small businesses and creatives by making them pay or post several times a day for “visibility” (translation: not to be shadowbanned) without providing anything back.
This app will know whether or not you’re circumcised
Yes but it didn’t take.
When Instagram replacement on Fediverse? Fediverse also needs youtube replacement. Lets go all the way and hit these greedy mfers where it hurts. Unfortunetly my dev skills are poor, but I can offer moral support.
Fediverse won’t likely see a video replacement for YouTube. Data is heavy and expensive.
How do I view the homepage?
you’re in luck, both already exist. check out pixelfed and peertube.
Thanks! I had never heard of pixelfed.
Can anyone explain how these are different from the data Meta already collects from its Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger users? I’ve been slowly moving my online presence away from Meta products, but I feel like Threads isn’t going to do much better than BlueSky, or Hive, or Post, or even our beloved Mastodon.
I doubt they are that different, so this should not be a shock to an existing member of the Meta ecosphere. it would be ideal however if those who are not already part of Meta’s userbase saw this and just decided not to join.
Yeah, I’ve been trying to get away from Meta for a while. It’s difficult because of my job and the fact that I live far away from family. Been getting a few people here and there to make the Fediverse switch; the lack of an abusive algorithm, ads, and data mining have been the selling points for them. Gonna check out Friendica this weekend, but I dunno. Might just stick to Mastodon and Lemmy for now.
I doubt they are that different, so this should not be a shock to an existing member of the Meta ecosphere. it would be ideal however if those who are not already part of Meta’s userbase saw this and just decided not to join.
i don’t know why anyone would want to go from something as bad as twitter to a Facebook owned twitter
Most people really don’t care :/
Those people are why we have so many problems in the world.
They’d probably say the same of you, for saying so!
“Do you find your embarrassing relatives on Facebook do too much contemplation and self-censoring before posting? Have we got a service for you!”
User: So how many permissions does your app need?
Threads: Yes!
They misspelled their service, should be: threats (to your privacy).
