Google can now read your WhatsApp messages

The line is blurry, but Microsoft was positioning Internet Explorer as an OS level feature, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...:

“Microsoft argued that the merging of Windows and IE was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and inextricably linked, and that consumers were receiving the benefits of IE for free.”

Apple somewhat similarly argued that the iOS App Store is an OS level feature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Background:

“Apple has further argued that it requires iOS apps to use its storefront to "ensure that iOS apps meet Apple's high standards for privacy, security, content, and quality" and avoid exposing iOS users to risks from alternative storefronts.”

In both cases justice departments (the ones who draw those lines) disagreed with those claims.

Eeewww.

We need a mobile OS competitor.

I am seriously considering a move to Fairphone with /e/os.

GrapheneOS would be a possibility, but I don't trust Google to make decent hardware, so not super excited to get a Pixel phone.

That doesn't make it any better or more acceptable. If anything, it makes it much, much worse. I absolutely don't want any LLM to have OS level access to my data, period.

However, operating system technology has come a long way since - the trick is to control not only the computer but the government.

These are basic core (and so far immovable) privacy principles, lets not lose sight of this when we delve into whataboutism.

However, Apple did have a use case that would be an obvious improvement. The very thing LLMs excel at is at processing and generating natural language. Improving Siri with LLM capabilities was the obvious move, especially at a time where LLM providers are willing to burn cash to reach a wider use base. It speaks volumes of a company that is just rent seeking their position in the smartphone market at this point.

Me: Hey Siri, text Jen [my wife] I love you.

Siri: OK, texting Johnny Chan [my ex-boss] I love you.

Me: What NO!

Johnny: Uh...

That happened. It's not something I read about or made up. It went pretty much exactly like that.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/a...

https://youtu.be/elfCDnMx3Ug?si=lP9OpeU9rpO2RIla

One wonders if you couldn't whip up something that would whip up a list of choices by operating locally only on the users history returning just a list of things to show on the page and forgetting it when the user closed the tab.

If you pay for it, you can expect to not be the product.

I don't see what people find so grating about having a ad-load/cost spectrum. Maybe it's just confusion about the billing model.

You can give away software, but running a service costs money. P2p messaging can be free (and signal exists), but nothing like free and adless YouTube or Facebook is going to happen regardless whether google or meta do anything to prevent it.

Things require labor. Labor costs money. Ergo, people giving you stuff require money, somehow. A tetris clone requires so little labour, that a well-off person with too much time (ergo labor) on their hands can give you that for free, but that's not scalable for 99% of important stuff.

Because capitalism, they also require more money, YoY, than last year, meaning they can't just make a steady stream of profit. They need more profit every year.

Now, all this is of course an inevitable consequence of capitalism, but that's not a conversation anyone herre seems ready for.

Same with all those car and watch ads in magazines. It's not like regular people are constantly looking to buy a new car. But the brand must be etched into brains. Your neighbor must be reasonably convinced that people around him are on the same page regarding the prestige of a certain brand, else it's not worth spending on. So even if you can't afford whatever car model, the fact that you're aware that it's prestigious is already worth it.

This is somewhat weaker in personalized online ads because your neighbor can't know what ads you saw. Billboards and super bowl ads a much better for establishing common knowledge, but perhaps that's why influencer-based marketing is gaining ground. All followers know that all followers saw the embedded ad. Maybe they should introduce ads where it says "Your friend Joe Schmo watched the following ad:"

I assume it's because I don't really browse for buyables unless I have the intent of buying something immediately. On a personal level, I fail entirely to understand the value proposition in web advertising.

You must be new here, have you not yet unlocked the wonders of credit card debt?

> What Gemini can’t do with WhatsApp

> Read or summarize your messages

> Add or read images, gifs, or memes in your messages

> Add or play audio or videos in your messages

> Read or respond to WhatsApp notifications

Of course, it's possible neowin says Google is lying, but they'll need to come up with something better than "maybe something may happen in the future" if they're going to make these claims.

If someone is concerned with their privacy by this feature, then they can just not use it. If someone is concerned that someone else might use this feature on private communications they had with the user, then that person misunderstands privacy and needs to realize that once they communicate their remarks to some other party, their ability to control their privacy to their own standards goes out the window generally, and not just with AI apps.

Windows Recall [1] is this for your PC activities (not yet fed to AI, but I see no reason to think it will stay this way). Meta is working on glasses to record the IRL part. But your phone is probably enough for most of it. Joining Zoom meetings with AI note takers is getting popular [2]. Not long until in-person meetings will have AI listening in from the phone mics, of course just to increase productivity and to summarize and remind you later. Convenience!

[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/retrace-your-ste... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44446916

Frankly, this sounds like a potential nightmare to me. Almost certainly, the big techCos that today use algorithmic "customer support" to randomly flag, ban and screw with users for completely opaque reasons and little recourse will try running all of the nice things you describe. It's very plausible that sooner or later it will become harder and harder to do any of those things by more conventional, atomic means, making you rely ever more on integrated connections between product/service providers and these ordering systems (it's "convenient", you see?) only to suddenly find yourself flagged, blocked, or banned for any number of idiotic, blandly brainless reasons and shut out of the most basic elements of your daily life.

That people would readily agree to sign up for such dependence on these opaque things is a mystery to me, and I hope a huge pushback against it happens at some point.

If you think I exaggerate, bear in mind how often such things already happen on a lesser scale in a world where having social media, a smartphone and accounts with services like Google's becomes necessary in some contexts. Also note how often someone or another finds themselves fucked when these existing dependencies suddenly get shut down because some bullshit algorithm supposedly said so.

It's also bad enough that payment systems and banking can be cut off to people who (having broken no law at all) hold some politically controversial, publicly activist discourse, or that banking and certain basic services can be withheld in some bizarre way because you live a life in which your residency or other life choices are outside the average. To have the same risks apply for ever more minor reasons across a huge swathe of just living your life is a monstrously insidious way of marginalizing and homogenizing social divergence.