[HN Gopher] Meta: Shut down your invasive AI Discover feed
___________________________________________________________________
Meta: Shut down your invasive AI Discover feed
Author : speckx
Score : 411 points
Date : 2025-06-06 15:33 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.mozillafoundation.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.mozillafoundation.org)
| iambateman wrote:
| This sounds like a big deal but could we get more details from
| Mozilla?
|
| An example? A screenshot?
|
| I don't understand, after reading, when this is happening or how.
| JimDabell wrote:
| It does a terrible job of explaining (in fact it doesn't even
| attempt to!), but I think it's related to Meta's new "AI social
| media app":
|
| https://about.fb.com/news/2025/04/introducing-meta-ai-app-ne...
|
| I heard that some people are using the AI in it without
| realising that they are sharing their prompts publicly.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >And as always, you're in control: nothing is shared to your
| feed unless you choose to post it.
|
| You have to explicitly hit a share and post button in order
| to post to your feed.
| marcellus23 wrote:
| It's still a problem they should fix (clearly they're not
| making it obvious enough that you're making your chat
| public), but that hardly fits Mozilla's accusation of
| "quietly turning private AI chats into public content."
| Disclaimer that I have not seen the UI, maybe it's much
| more misleading than it sounds.
| JoBrad wrote:
| To be fair, Meta has a history of pushing people towards
| sharing when they wouldn't otherwise do so. Doesn't explain
| the petition's wording, which suggests interactions are
| public by default.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| But Mozilla isn't showing the supposedly problematic flow.
| Where, exactly, are things going wrong? Show an example?
| vini wrote:
| Same, here's some context:
|
| "Meta's rollout of social features in its stand-alone AI app,
| released last week. Those quiet queries -- "What's this
| embarrassing rash?" or "How can I tell my wife I don't love her
| anymore?" -- could soon be visible to anyone scrolling through
| the app's Discover tab."
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/91327812/metas-ai-social-feed-is...
| ot wrote:
| > While the company insists that "nothing is shared unless
| you choose to post it," the app nonetheless nudges people to
| share--and overshare--whether they fully realize it or not.
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| Really just get off meta platforms
| kennywinker wrote:
| Network effects have most people stuck on at least one of them.
| If all your friends use instagram/fb/whatsapp to keep in touch
| / make plans, leaving the platform is akin to cutting ties with
| your community.
|
| Which is why there is a role for gov in regulating privacy and
| mandating interop between platforms. Asking people to "just
| stop using them" isn't a realistic ask.
| 8fingerlouie wrote:
| Besides that, pretty much everything "after school" is being
| arranged over Facebook, as well as community "blogs",
| newsletters etc.
|
| Facebook solves this problem extremely well. I still remember
| the "good old days" of poorly managed Wordpress sites, shared
| Google calendars, mailing lists, and texts, and I'm not
| particularly keen on going back to that.
|
| The sad truth is that there is nothing on the market today
| that solves this problem in a combined package, and you can
| add discoverability to the mix. If you're interested in X you
| can search for it on Facebook and 9/10 times you'll find what
| you're looking for, from menus for restaurants to opening
| hours. Yes, Google does this as well but somehow people
| (here) are more aware of the feature on Facebook.
| rel_ic wrote:
| Yeah, it's a tradeoff. I don't mean to be glib, but on one
| side we have a loneliness epidemic, mass misinformation
| campaigns, and centralized control, and on the other side
| we have better information about restaurants, easier after-
| school arrangements, and community blogs. I really don't
| mean to say that the benefits are not real benefits - they
| are! I just think their price is way too high.
| a57721 wrote:
| I would rather prefer the good old days with wonky
| WordPress sites and mailing lists. It is true that most
| business owners moved to Facebook at some point, but the
| price to pay is having all content undiscoverable and
| inaccessible, unless your user has a Facebook account.
| WolfeReader wrote:
| Actually it is very realistic to stop using Meta products -
| I've done it. And the more people stop, the less effective
| the network effect becomes.
| rel_ic wrote:
| People in my community are bragging about getting off
| social media - it's like a new status symbol around here.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Being off their social media products is one thing, I am
| myself, but being off of WhatsApp is like being off the
| grid in most countries.
| JambalayaJimbo wrote:
| In the early 2010s not being on Facebook meant you couldn't
| really engage with university clubs, neighborhood groups,
| etc.
|
| Now a lot of that stuff is on WhatsApp.
| rel_ic wrote:
| I want to push back on this narrative - I got off facebook
| and now my friends just text me instead. A few of my friends
| also got off facebook. Sometimes I can't see a facebook event
| so I text a friend asking for details. It's fine.
| reaperducer wrote:
| I'm with you. But it doesn't work 100%.
|
| I dumped Meta probably a decade ago, and anyone who wants
| to get in touch with me does so through e-mail.
|
| But I still have two relatives stuck on FB Messenger. Even
| if I contact them via SMS, they still respond to my dormant
| account in FB Messenger, because Messenger is where all of
| their friends are. To them, it's the only messaging app,
| and have no idea why it doesn't work sending messages to
| me.
| hbn wrote:
| Of the people who accumulated in my Facebook friends list
| over the years, the only ones I know who actively use
| Facebook still are almost entirely using it to have stupid
| political arguments with each other. It really has
| snowballed and bred derangement.
| Drew_ wrote:
| You can enable email notifications specifically for
| Facebook events btw. I quit, but leave that enabled.
| homebrewer wrote:
| In some countries it has become difficult to live without a
| WhatsApp account. I'm doing it, but it's a pain since
| WhatsApp is used for everything that phone calls were once
| used for: schedule appointments, keep in contact with your
| kids' teachers, buy and sell goods, etc. The same numbers
| often won't pick up the call, or it will be simply turned
| off (since it's used just for WhatsApp).
|
| Imagine living without a phone, or whatever is equally
| important in your area. Sure, it is possible, if you're at
| the right level of masochism.
| int_19h wrote:
| Facebook isn't the worst of it. WhatsApp is, in those areas
| where it is the de facto standard app for texting. This is
| not the case for Americans so they are mostly blissfully
| unaware of it, but just imagine literally not being able to
| text anyone.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| It's not wrong to ask people to be leaders instead of
| followers. The message and pressure will sometimes get
| through. It's better than doing nothing.
| platevoltage wrote:
| I finally ripped the bandaid off with Instagram early this
| year. I can't say it's done wonders for my social life.
| Mental health has been a lot better though.
| gs17 wrote:
| Yep, I've tried, but if I say, e.g. "let's use Matrix!" it
| ends up being the app they only have to talk to me, and most
| of what they say is "why can't you use the app everyone else
| uses". Most people already have a second choice that isn't
| much better than a Meta app (or is also Meta).
| bigshot wrote:
| Only reason I use it is because of my meta ray bans. Once a
| competitive product comes out I'll delete app immediately.
| zer0zzz wrote:
| I agree, but I am more of the mindset that we should be getting
| off all platforms if possible.
| 127dot1 wrote:
| And from Mozilla business as well
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| Reminds me of the story the other day, "Meta found 'covertly
| tracking' Android users through Instagram and Facebook" with
| the STUN requests being sent from web pixels back to localhost
| Meta apps (FB/IG).
|
| I just don't think anyone can be using Facebook/IG, especially
| persistent mobile apps, while have any real concern about
| tracking.
|
| Does FB still run their Tor onion service? That seemed to be
| the only possible way to use these products in the past without
| being subject to extreme tracking.
| pier25 wrote:
| Most of the world outside of the US runs on Whatsapp.
|
| SMS is not an option because, again outside of the US, people
| pay by SMS sent.
|
| There are plans for Whatsapp interop but probably only in the
| EU.
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-interoperability-messag...
| barbazoo wrote:
| Signal exists, Telegram exists, and many providers are
| actually not charging per sms.
| dhritzkiv wrote:
| In many countries, WhatsApp's data usage is zero-rated,
| which makes WhatsApp more attractive than Signal, Telegram,
| etc.
| mmmlinux wrote:
| sounds like a bit of a government sanctioned monopoly.
| pier25 wrote:
| Whatsapp has 3 billion active users.
|
| Countries like Mexico or Spain have adopted it as the
| default form of messaging. Only today I used it to chat
| with our lawn maintenance guy, our car washer, and someone
| who's repairing our espresso machine.
|
| I could maybe try to convince friends and family to use
| another app but I won't be convincing an entire country.
| vachina wrote:
| Don't get off meta, leech off of it. Don't contribute any
| posts, comment, or any behavioral signal. Use the webapp, use
| them in separate, private browsing containers (if able).
| Uninstall and eradicate all Meta apps from your devices.
| Sanzig wrote:
| While I am happy Mozilla is still going after privacy disasters
| like Meta, it does ring a little hollow after the Firefox terms
| of use change and subsequent back pedaling [1].
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-
| deletes-...
| brookst wrote:
| Mozilla is definitely not ideologically pure. But so what? Who
| is?
| thih9 wrote:
| Context:
|
| - "Meta has a new stand-alone AI app. It lets you see what other
| people are asking." https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-ai-app-
| public-feed-warn... (may 2025)
|
| - "People are seemingly accidentally publishing their AI chat
| histories with Meta's new AI app"
| https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/05/05/meta-ai-chatbot-discove...
| (may 2025)
|
| Note that the first link states that conversations are private by
| default and that user error is likely involved[1]. Mozilla's use
| of text emphasis almost implies otherwise[2].
|
| [1]: "To be clear, your AI chats are not public by default -- you
| have to choose to share them individually by tapping a share
| button. Even so, I get the sense that some people don't really
| understand what they're sharing, or what's going on."
|
| [2]: At least that's how I understood "_Make all AI interactions
| private by default_ with no public sharing option unless
| explicitly enabled through informed consent." at first glance.
| plasma_beam wrote:
| It blows my mind how many people still publicly post venmo
| payments, so this doesn't surprise me actually.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| why venmo even has a "feed" is unknown to me. are people
| actually doom scrolling that?
| triceratops wrote:
| If it's there people will use it like social media. "Ooh
| looks like Adrian went to La Bamba with Chilliwack, he paid
| them $50 for drinks there"
| 0xEF wrote:
| Engagement. It's part of a dark pattern that triggers that
| little neuron tie our tendency to compare ourselves to
| others, a sort of "keeping up with the Joneses" type thing.
| It is also billed as a free advertising for businesses
| (e.g. hey, look where your friends shop!) which encourages
| more businesses to accept Venmo as a payment method.
|
| Anything for the sake of growth or perceived growth, up to
| and including privacy violations.
| ashdksnndck wrote:
| I figure whatever they are trying to achieve probably
| doesn't work. Otherwise Cash App would do it. But important
| decision makers are in too deep to admit they were wrong.
| Smells of turning the Magic Mouse upside down to charge it.
| Timothee wrote:
| CollegeHumor, now Dropout, made a skit about this very
| question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFLztKBrLY
| libraryatnight wrote:
| If i put your information in a feed, you'll look really
| stupid when you cry privacy violation down the road as you
| realize what I've been doing with your information.
| layman51 wrote:
| It is definitely odd. I think it started off as a KYC-kind
| of check. If there's some weird, possibly illegal reason
| you type into the "what is this payment for?" input, I read
| that someone on behalf of Venmo will contact you to have
| you explain it further and to investigate if it should lead
| to the closure of your account.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is unsurprising that Venmo has a log of transactions,
| right? That's a necessary part of the job. Having it as
| something that can be presented as a social feed is the
| weird thing...
|
| It almost seems like a radical art project, philosophical
| statement, or social experiment around transparency.
| Like, hypothetically in some alternate universe if they
| did _no_ KYC, and just published everybody's
| transactions, your peers could inspect your transactions,
| the police could just look and see if you were
| transacting with criminals... sort of like open source
| transactions. Maybe that was the original idea? And then
| eventually they got some actual customers and said "shit
| we're a real company now, let's put the social experiment
| on the back burner, add an opt-out, and start doing in-
| house kyc."
| burningChrome wrote:
| I had no idea this was true until a buddy of mine who I
| play hockey with started putting super offensive notes on
| the payment, trying to trigger someone since it was a hot
| debate after one of our games if this actually occurred.
| After about five or six of these, someone did in fact
| contact him first via email, then actually called him and
| asked him to explain the notes and yes they do monitor
| these and yes, if its really suspect, the feds will be
| notified.
|
| Which then begs the obvious - if you're buying drugs,
| then don't put you're buying drugs or paying off your
| bookie.
| chihuahua wrote:
| I guess it's law enforcement on the honor system - when
| you do something illegal, you're expected tell the
| police-monitored feed that you did it. We assume that no
| one is so unethical that they keep their illegal acts
| secret.
|
| For extra credit, let's put this stuff on the blockchain.
| Crime is solved!
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Seems odd to me, I use the app and it has never once nudged me
| to share anything?
| recursive wrote:
| Perhaps you're sharing things without knowing it.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| I did a test to see how it works, the app make it pretty
| clear. You click share, it then shows you a preview of
| exactly what you are posting, and you have to hit a post
| button to actually post it.
| pryelluw wrote:
| You are a power user. How about the median meta user?
| Would they know? Is the app designed to alert them?
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Are you pointing out an actual issue with this app? Or
| are your questions just hypotheticals about some mythical
| app that Meta may or may not have built?
| gundmc wrote:
| Thank you for this. One of these links should really be the one
| in the submission. The Mozilla petition doesn't provide any
| useful context.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Sidenote: How is Mozilla's comm's so bad? I had no idea what
| their petition was talking about.
|
| Thank you for your service.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| It's honestly impressive how bad Mozilla is at communication
| and its been like this for years.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Effective communication is quite humbling.
|
| It's been my experience that _I_ need to take _full
| responsibility_ for the effectiveness of my communications.
|
| A few years ago, I threw together a PowerPoint show, based
| on Randall Munroe's _Communication_ comic[0]. I did it for
| an organization I participate in, that is full of some of
| the worst communicators I 've ever encountered.
|
| It astounds me, how people that get paid to communicate,
| don't understand the fundamentals.
|
| [0] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qQDAuhGvBvBlZVH
| 2zn_V... (You need to view the slide notes, or it doesn't
| make any sense).
| skybrian wrote:
| Anyone know how to show the speaker notes on mobile?
|
| It seems like the xkcd comic itself is pretty hard to
| follow. It would probably be better with dialog.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'm not sure. It was originally a PP show, and I dumped
| it into Google Slides, for a friend.
|
| Probably doesn't matter. My experience is that most folks
| have no intentions of doing what it prescribes, so it's
| kind of wasted effort.
| kennyadam wrote:
| That PowerPoint made my irony meter explode!
| bauble wrote:
| Even with the notes, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why
| would you illustrate communication problems with people
| who literally don't speak the same language?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| It's almost impossible to understand, just from looking
| at the comic. Some of his comics are like that.
|
| I stared at it for quite a while, before it "clicked."
|
| Once it did, the message was obvious.
|
| The PowerPoint was designed to be presented. It's not
| particularly useful, just being read. It really needs a
| narrator that can explain the concepts.
|
| The idea is that it's possible to communicate
| effectively, even when it seems impossible, _as long as
| we are willing to take responsibility for the message,
| and figure out how to make it work_. In order to do that,
| we need to understand the message, the recipient, the
| context, and the medium.
|
| It also shows how we can lose the message, when we get
| sidetracked by the messenger or the medium.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| If you read the notes on each slide that becomes pretty
| clear.
| mmooss wrote:
| > people who literally don't speak the same language?
|
| That's not my understanding of the XKCD comic, if that's
| what you mean.
|
| Also, I don't find the comic to be hard to understand. It
| takes a little work but it's pretty clear.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| The reason is that most people wouldn't care about the actual
| thing happening. Mozilla chooses to frame things in a way
| that is more likely to motivate people to action, even if
| that means being vague or dishonest. In this case their point
| #2 is dishonest because it already works that way.
|
| In the app there is a "Share" button at the top right. After
| clicking you see an interstitial with a big "Post" button at
| the bottom. When you click that button, the chat is shared.
| Lerc wrote:
| The ends justify the means always backfires in
| communication. People just lose trust in what they are
| being told.
|
| There are so many examples of this. There was a poster that
| attempted to reduce needle reuse by showing the same needle
| degrading after multiple uses. The problem is that was not
| very dramatic (also not where the risk lies) so they
| increased the magnification at each stage to make the
| degredation seem worse than it was. People recognised this
| and the primary message amongst their target demographic
| was anti-drug campaigners lie to you.
|
| I'm not sure how much this will damage Mozilla. Perhaps not
| much because they have already lost so much mana. Before
| coming to the comments and reading this thread, I had
| already thought to myself, "Can I really trust what Mozilla
| says anymore?".
|
| Perhaps that makes it even worse. To have doubts that are
| so quickly confirmed suggests not only that you can't trust
| them, but you reliably can't trust them.
|
| I want to like and support Mozilla, I'm posting this from
| Firefox, that makes me one of the few sticking with them.
| They make it so hard sometimes.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The Mozilla organization is run poorly. I really wish it was
| different.
| echelon wrote:
| The Mozilla organization has leadership that is complicit
| with Google.
|
| - Mozilla acts as an antitrust sponge for Google and in
| exchange gets lots of money
|
| - Mozilla is encouraged not to make Firefox better than
| Chrome. They thus under-invest in Mozilla, Rust, and core
| browser tech.
|
| - Mozilla spends all of its money on irrelevant efforts
| like VR, shitty platform plays, half-baked AI, and insane
| exec comp.
|
| It's a drop in the bucket for Google's peace of mind.
|
| If Mozilla wanted to be a next-gen serious company, they
| would become a developer tooling and platform company.
| They'd keep developing Firefox and Rust, they'd build up an
| ecosystem around Rust and WASM, and they'd be the best in
| the world at it. Deploy websites, micro services, and run
| CI with Mozilla.
|
| Rust is infectious and growing, WASM will eat the web and
| the data center, and Mozilla is completely sleeping on it.
| What's sad is how much of a hand they had in developing it
| all.
|
| They threw away the stuff that mattered.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >Mozilla is encouraged not to make Firefox better than
| Chrome. They thus under-invest in Mozilla, Rust, and core
| browser tech.
|
| Is there any evidence of this kind of corruption? It
| always seemed like misguided altruism to me, or at worst
| a serious lack of focus.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| I wish people had such faith in my own competence.
| echelon wrote:
| All it takes is one CEO. The ICs have nothing to do this.
| raincole wrote:
| Honestly, even after (quickly) reading the context, I still
| don't know why Mozilla had such a strong reaction to this.
| vegetable wrote:
| Maybe one of their execs fat fingered and shared something
| embarrassingly.
| abeppu wrote:
| I haven't used the app and likely won't but neither article
| shows the mechanism by which users opt into "sharing" their
| interactions. Is there a dark pattern involved?
|
| Like, in lots of other app contexts, you can hit "share" and
| then get a modal that gives you options (do you want to share
| it via WhatsApp or messages or email or ...) and only after you
| select a mode and a recipient does it actually get shared --
| but if you make a "share" button whose behavior is "immediately
| publish", people might reasonably be surprised if they actually
| just want to share the results with a specific trusted person
| who they expected to select next in the interaction.
| btown wrote:
| I'm not sure about this specific situation, but from Google
| Docs to ChatGPT to Notion, there's a clear distinction between
| "make this a shareable link to only those who have the link"
| and "also make that shareable link searchable/discoverable by
| the public."
|
| If Meta is turning that "searchability/discoverability" on by
| default when a share button is activated on an AI chat - or
| worse, if they're not even giving this industry-standard option
| - that would both explain the confusion, and be a terribly
| unexpected dark pattern. As the parent notes, the activation of
| a share icon is not informed consent.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I don't think that is the case with ChatGPT:
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/chatgpt-users-report-
| being-a...
| btown wrote:
| That situation was a bug, with a detailed post-mortem:
| https://openai.com/index/march-20-chatgpt-outage/
|
| It is worth noting of course that per
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44185913 ChatGPT will
| now be required by law to retain a record of all chat
| history for courts and lawyers to review, but at least that
| data won't be made fully public.
|
| Both of those are different from a willing and intentional
| dark pattern of making things publicly discoverable!
| ensignavenger wrote:
| I did a test in the app, and it is pretty obvious you are
| posting the chat. You click share, then you are given a
| preview, and you have to hit post to actually post it
| publicly.
| wheelerwj wrote:
| There's a chance you're overestimating a large percentage
| of the public.
| serial_dev wrote:
| Then should publishing always be disallowed on all
| platforms? I'm having trouble understanding how is what
| Facebook is doing any different from ChatGPT, and in
| general all web apps.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| If a part of the population is dumb, the issue is that
| it's dumb, not meta user interface.
|
| I'm the first to bash on meta but there are things that
| they are not responsible for.
| maxdamantus wrote:
| And then does it ask who you want to post it to, or to
| which app? Because that's a fairly common pattern when I
| "share" something on my phone.
|
| Or does it just post it onto the public feed?
| dumbfounder wrote:
| That context should be in there. Give me the facts or else it's
| just whining.
| USeyller wrote:
| Thank you, the linked article was completely unclear and vague
| on what the issue was.
| ATechGuy wrote:
| Has someone noticed a similar thing with ChatGPT and private
| Github repos? ChatGPT has recommended private repo links to me
| many times. Because they are not public, I get repo not found
| error. But ChatGPT can generate private code with no issues.
| nchmy wrote:
| Are you sure the private repos exist, rather than just being
| hallucinations?
| fouc wrote:
| Yeah it's always been hallucinated repos. It's easy enough
| to verify - do a google search on the repo name itself and
| see if it's ever been mentioned or used anywhere and if it
| matches what ChatGPT thinks it was suggesting. And check to
| see if the owner of the repo exists and if they do, check
| their repositories to see which programming languages &
| topics they favor and see if it matches or not.
| maeil wrote:
| Github -> Microsoft sharing everything with OpenAI sadly
| sounds realistic.
|
| Or they don't exist in the first pLace, or they're now
| deleted repos, or they used to be public but went private,
| etc.
| ATechGuy wrote:
| Unfortunately, everything you mentioned above is a
| possibility.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Mozilla, come on. WTH is the "AI Discover Feed"? Can you link to
| something? Show a video? Post an image?
|
| This entire page assumed you know everything about it, assumes
| you know about some kind of issue involving private chats
| leaking, and assumes it's been proven they training on private
| chats.
|
| I'm not interested in trusting Meta at all and I can completely
| believe they are doing something horrible but this page doesn't
| give even 1/10th of the information needed.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| Who in their right mind would trust fb with AI questions?
| dylan604 wrote:
| fb users
| zer0zzz wrote:
| Why wouldn't they ? For a couple years now with llama they were
| the ai good guys
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| So like do if I buy the Meta Ray-Bans will my pictures and stuff
| be posted for everyone to see or is this an opt-in type thing?
| georgeecollins wrote:
| The sad thing is if they told you they wouldn't I am not sure I
| would trust it.
|
| People think this is about giving away embarrassing
| information. Think if you are using AI to explain a contract,
| explore a business deal, etc. The sensitive information could
| be very valuable.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| Meta has never accidentally shared private photos. I don't
| see any reason to believe this would happen
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Just assume that every interaction you have with Meta will be
| public. Because it will be, either accidentally or if they think
| they can make an extra dollar by selling it.
|
| And behave accordingly.
| umanwizard wrote:
| After 10+ years of using Messenger daily, my chats still have
| not become public.
|
| I agree there are huge privacy concerns with meta, but
| hyperbole that anyone can immediately see is false isn't the
| right way to convince people.
| kyle-rb wrote:
| Messenger is also the only one of Meta's apps that I still
| use regularly and I was pleasantly surprised with their
| decision to roll out E2E encryption by default.
|
| https://about.fb.com/news/2023/12/default-end-to-end-
| encrypt...
| pests wrote:
| It's probably beyond your 10 year cutoff, but back when
| Messenger was still just an email inbox on Facebook and the
| Timeline was all the rage, I do remember a message leak. For
| some period of time, if you scrolled back far enough in
| someone's Timeline you would begin to see their messages as
| posts in the feed.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Do you know though that they haven't been accessed/used/sold?
| Chances I would say are much higher compared to Signal,
| Telegram, etc.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > accessed/used
|
| I have no idea
|
| > sold
|
| I very strongly doubt it. There's no evidence that Meta
| sells user data, despite people having confidently claimed
| for many years that they do.
|
| But regardless, none of this is the same as the messages
| being _public_ , which is what was originally claimed.
| Facebook selling my messages to nefarious companies that
| want to profile me, while bad, would be quite different
| from them being accessible to anyone who wanted them.
| dmos62 wrote:
| The punctuation in "Meta: shut down [...]" implies that meta is
| saying "shut down". It should be a comma, as in "Meta, shut down
| your [...]".
| fastball wrote:
| Should probably be: "Dear Meta: ..."
| Izkata wrote:
| Colon was how you'd get someone's attention in old chat apps.
| For example IRC clients that tab-complete nicknames would
| automatically add it if the input started with the nickname.
| dmos62 wrote:
| Interesting point. Then today it could be "@Meta shut [...]".
| gs17 wrote:
| Of course, but then it reads like Meta shut down my
| invasive AI Discover Feed if I didn't realize what the @
| meant. Really, the best solution is a comma after Meta
| instead of a colon, so it's clearly a command at Meta, like
| you said.
| Drew_ wrote:
| Mozilla should be more focused on figuring out how to actually
| make money and not this sensationalist stuff. Depending on how
| the Google case lands, they're finished.
| __loam wrote:
| Meta should be more focused on not being massive ass holes and
| not this invasive shit. Depending on how their own anti-trust
| suit lands, public society might decide to break them up out of
| spite.
| zer0zzz wrote:
| Yeah that's not going to happen. They're going to be building
| weaponry for the government soon.
| __loam wrote:
| Is that why there's an ongoing anti-trust case against
| them?
| platevoltage wrote:
| There is one reason and one reason alone that this case
| is still ongoing. Mark's financial contributions,
| character change, and makeover weren't enough to make
| nice nice with the man in charge.
| Xunjin wrote:
| Going to be fair, when Mozilla focuses on new products to try
| to make money, people complain and tell them to focus on the
| browser because it's bad (it's not).
| serf wrote:
| no, people tell them to focus on the browser because the
| majority of features added in the past 15 years are either
| incredibly flavored (here's your new AI tab!) , or they're
| profit-seeking motivated (we're proud to present our new
| collaboration with Pocket (tm) (c), P.S. welcome to your new
| hompeage with cookies and sponsored assets. )
|
| The major reason Firefox has a large market share is simply
| because Google is that much more abusive to users -- and
| that's not a great reason.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| None of those products include "the browser", which is the
| only thing that keeps Mozilla relevant.
| pier25 wrote:
| > _Depending on how the Google case lands, they 're finished._
|
| Whiche case? Can you elaborate?
| warkdarrior wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/23869483/us-v-google-search-
| antitru...
|
| Google paid others to give preference to their search engine.
| Among those paid is Mozilla, who may lose this payment from
| Google if the court decides to block such payments.
| pier25 wrote:
| Thanks for the link.
|
| Yeah if Google stops paying FF it's game over for them.
| klabb3 wrote:
| > Mozilla should
|
| Why is HN obsessed with suggesting strategic decisions for this
| company in particular? It's like the most popular thing to have
| an opinion about, and only on HN.
| serf wrote:
| because it represents a paper thin condom that prevents
| Google from fucking the whole world, and if it gets steered
| the wrong way we're doomed until the inevitable 1990s style
| anti-trust suit.
| mmooss wrote:
| Criticizing Mozilla in every situation is almost guaranteed.
| An odd behavior for a community that supports FOSS.
|
| Mozilla's credibility is a threat to the powers-that-be in
| the industry. I wonder if that drives a lot of it:
|
| Attacking the messenger is a very popular tactic now. You can
| see it on Fox, for example. Attacking the messenger changes
| the topic - it makes the messenger the topic, not the
| undesired thing - and the messenger often responds by
| embracing this new topic by defending itself. The undesired
| thing is forgotten and to the degree it's remembered, the
| attack is discredited.
| Drew_ wrote:
| Because Mozilla's long term sustainability is good for the
| internet.
| drillsteps5 wrote:
| I mean... People are willingly sending their data to another
| computer operated and fully owned by another entity, and then
| take offense when that other entity does what it wants with that
| data (which I'm pretty sure is allowed according to their
| incredibly/intentionally vague T&Cs).
|
| What exactly are they complaining about?..
| thuanao wrote:
| Mozilla: Stop lying. Now.
| platevoltage wrote:
| about what?
| thuanao wrote:
| They don't share chats with others unless you click the
| "Share" button to share the chats.
|
| They are private by default. It's basically the same as every
| other AI chat app.
| djaychela wrote:
| Dear mozilla (actually loads of Web debs)
|
| Make your website strip trailing spaces off autofillled emails
| instead of saying they are invalid.
|
| It's really not hard, I can manage it.
| haolez wrote:
| I wonder what chain of events led to this design in the PM's
| mind.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| After trying the app, it's hard for me to interpret this article
| as anything other than Mozilla lying. Sharing in this app is the
| same as any other social media app.
|
| In the app there is a "Share" button at the top right. After
| clicking you see an interstitial with a big "Post" button at the
| bottom. When you click that button, the chat is shared.
|
| Am I seeing something different than anybody else? Why would
| Mozilla lie like this? Most of the "demands" are already
| satisfied.
|
| > Shut down the Discover feed until real privacy protections are
| in place.
|
| Everything is already private by default and you can see what is
| public.
|
| > Make all AI interactions private by default with no public
| sharing option unless explicitly enabled through informed
| consent.
|
| This is true already
|
| > Provide full transparency about how many users have unknowingly
| shared private information.
|
| Meta shouldn't have to do this
|
| > Create a universal, easy-to-use opt-out system for all Meta
| platforms that prevents user data from being used for AI
| training.
|
| This already exists (EDIT, looks like only for EU users.
| Personally I don't believe this is related to the public sharing
| claims)
|
| > Notify all users whose conversations may have been made public,
| and allow them to delete their content permanently.
|
| This already exists
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| This is a dark-pattern problem. A large number of people are
| accidentally sharing things _to the general public_ when they
| intended to share them _to specific people_. That is one issue
| being flagged here. To many people, "share" means "give me a
| way to share to specific people", not "mark this for
| indexing/searching for the general public".
| hanspeter wrote:
| I don't think this is a dark-pattern problem in the sense
| that I don't think it is _intentionally_ deceiving.
|
| I think Meta fully expected this feature to be used by people
| who are excited about their conversation with the AI and
| wants to share it publicly. Just like we see with OpenAI
| Sora.
|
| There's not much to win for Meta if users instead are
| unknowingly sharing deeply personal conversations.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > I think Meta fully expected this feature to be used by
| people who are excited about their conversation with the AI
| and wants to share it publicly.
|
| That's really what you think? And what they think? That
| people are so enamored - in droves - with their exchange
| with a chatbot that they're trying to share it for the
| world to see?
|
| Maybe I'm the old fogey who doesn't get it, but it's just
| hard for me to believe that this is something many people
| want, or something that smart people think others earnestly
| want. Again, I may be the outlier here, but this just
| sounds crazy to me.
| atrus wrote:
| Considering that 90% of the chats I see share are people
| tripping over themselves to demonstrate the AI being
| silly and dumb, yeah they are enamored to share with the
| public :p
| hanspeter wrote:
| People share AI chats all the time on Twitter, Reddit,
| etc.
|
| I don't personally think the feature makes a lot of sense
| in Meta AI.
|
| However it's a lot more likely their product team
| genuinely thought it might do, than it is likely they
| intentionally wanted to give users a bad experience and
| risk more bad press (again, Meta would benefit nothing
| from people sharing by mistake).
| behringer wrote:
| If you aren't using AI your peers and competitors are. It
| is highly effective at getting you through tough problems
| quickly.
|
| It has problems for sure, but if you aren't "enamored"
| with AI then I don't think you've actually tried to use
| it.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| You completely misunderstood me. I am not incredulous
| that people use AI, nor am I in any way doubting how it
| can aid all sorts of processes.
|
| I am incredulous that a _primary use case_ of a genAI
| chatbot is sharing your chat conversation publicly. It 's
| easy to see why people would do this for genAI images,
| videos, or even code; I even understand some occasional
| sharing of a chat exchange from time to time. But
| routine, regular interest, from regular people, of just
| sharing their text chat? I do not understand that at all.
| behringer wrote:
| On that we can definitely agree.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| I agree. Further, these companies show us over and over
| again who they are, and whether it's tobacco companies,
| pharma, food, or oil companies they always know - in
| exactly the way and at the time that makes you sick to
| your stomach - what they're doing and who's likely to
| fall for it in a way that makes. The comments in this
| topic are feeling a bit sophist
| SecretDreams wrote:
| > I think Meta fully expected this feature to be used by
| people who are excited about their conversation with the AI
| and wants to share it publicly. Just like we see with
| OpenAI Sora.
|
| META expectations=/= expectations of a reasonable human
| that has used other "share" buttons before.
| hanspeter wrote:
| Share buttons offer no inherent privacy settings.
|
| Sharing to a text message is private. In contrast,
| sharing to social media platforms such as Twitter,
| Reddit, Pinterest, and LinkedIn makes the content public.
| The destination determines the audience.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| The TYPICAL behaviour when you hit "share" on any
| platform is not to immediately share. It TYPICALLY gives
| you options to share to a variety of other sources, both
| public and private. It also generates a link if you want
| to grab the link and specifically share that.
|
| That is the TYPICAL share behaviour. If what META is
| doing with their new app is obscuring this typical
| behaviour and a "share" click directly going to the
| public, that would violate the defacto behaviour users
| are accustomed to when using the share button.
| hanspeter wrote:
| The initial "Share" click doesn't post anything publicly.
|
| It just opens a modal so you can choose to post. You have
| to make a second click to confirm.
| motoxpro wrote:
| Typical behavior on a Meta/social app is that it shares
| it to everyone. See Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter,
| etc.
|
| If you index on chat apps, you're correct, if you start
| from Meta's social apps, which they said they have, you
| are incorrect.
| nine_k wrote:
| A typical "Share" button, e.g. as seen in every Google app,
| allows to choose the recipients, including everyone (public
| sharing).
|
| A button that always shares content with the general public
| should be called "Publish".
|
| (We'll discuss cache invalidation next time.)
| antithesizer wrote:
| The difference is that on those apps it would be a miracle
| if your "publicly" shared post were ever seen by more than
| a handful of strangers. None of those send it to the front
| page except in very rare circumstances (going viral).
| nine_k wrote:
| The point is not the fanout factor but the lack of
| limitations. A public post is such that anyone can see,
| without authentication. A widely shared post that
| requires login to see is not public. An obscure pastebin
| paste is public, even though it's normally seen by a
| handful. But you don't get to _control_ who these handful
| are.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| I think it's reasonable to see this as mimicing every other
| AI chat app, where "Share" means share publicly. For example
| in ChatGPT.
| boroboro4 wrote:
| But it is different? In both Gemini and ChatGPT when you
| click "Share" you get a link to the post you can share. It
| doesn't add the chat to common "Discover" section in the
| app (there is no such section there). As others pointed out
| "Share" in Meta AI app is actually "Publish", unlike the
| one in other chat apps where it is, in fact, share.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| The action button says "Post", which to me is pretty
| close to Publish
|
| And shared ChatGPT chats are often indexed by Google, so
| they become public. Although I agree it's not exactly the
| same because of the lack of builtin discovery
| boroboro4 wrote:
| "Post" is indicative for a person paying attention. For a
| random non tech person trying to share thing it's just
| one more button to press to get the link. Note it's very
| hard to share the chat while not making it public - you
| will need to explicitly mark it private after you posted
| it. I bet you for absolutely majority of users posts
| being public and discoverable pretty much unintended
| consequence of them trying to share it to someone.
|
| As for google I assume it's true if you post your chat
| somewhere (I.e Reddit). For most of shares these chats
| never end up being on the internet (I.e stay in private
| chats in messengers). So it is different again.
|
| Overall it is pretty much predator behavior exploiting
| people's need to share their chats to get them doing
| something unintended and good for Meta. This being said
| whole idea of an app with chats as posts is quite lame,
| so not sure if it will stick.
| jwitthuhn wrote:
| It would have made sense for Mozilla to mention that in the
| article. Instead they just lie about how it works.
| cornedor wrote:
| Not a user, but isn't de difference here that users might
| expect a shared item only to be visible for friends, but
| instead it is public?
| mgraczyk wrote:
| That is possible. I wouldn't think that because there are no
| "friends" in this app but I could see why a Facebook user
| might think that. On the other hand, when you open the app
| you immediately see content from people you aren't connected
| to. It all feels very public to me.
| fragmede wrote:
| I opened the app and the third post was someone making a
| note to self to cancel their car insurance, followed by a
| reply comment saying oops that wasn't supposed to be
| public, so at least one user was confused.
|
| It seems to be mostly generated pictures though.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Your question is important because we need to understand
| _nothing_ is private online. Yes, thankfully our bank
| accounts and other important info is PW protected, however,
| these PW 's are eventually stolen by data breaches. (Didn't
| we all recently have to change our PW's on FB, Microsoft,
| Google and Apple?)
|
| To think that anything used on AI is going to _stay_ private
| is nice, but not likely.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Bad take. And these types of takes are why privacy
| continues to be eroding.
|
| I agree with you that privacy right now is fragile at best.
| Disagree that it needs to be.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| <Disagree that it needs to be.>
|
| Please explain. I don't think that privacy should ever be
| fragile.
| layman51 wrote:
| Why did we all "have to change" our passwords on these
| large platforms. What happened? Was there a leak I didn't
| hear about?
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Only 184M, this time!
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-
| software/184-million-...
| hanspeter wrote:
| > > Provide full transparency about how many users have
| unknowingly shared private information.
|
| > Meta shouldn't have to do this
|
| And couldn't either. How would they know if users shared
| unknowingly?
| themagician wrote:
| > Am I seeing something different than anybody else?
|
| Maybe. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow.
|
| As others have mentioned, the _core_ problem with Meta today is
| the dark patterns. They move, edit, and remove UI elements
| specifically to optimize against whatever behavior they want
| the user to take. I 'm always amazed when things end up posted,
| shared, or alterated in a way I did not intened or can't even
| remember having taken an action against. Things just seem to
| happen with Meta products... even for accounts that are idle.
|
| And if you spend enough time with Meta products, you'll start
| to realize that no two users are guaranteed to have the same
| experience. There is no standard experience. The experience
| changes based on region and langauge and honestly who knows
| what else. They are constantly testing and optimizing for dark
| patterns in production. Spend an hour with the Meta Business
| Suite. The entire platform is essentially a dark pattern
| labyrinth of broken links, broken features, and UI elements
| that go nowhere or to deprecated functions. One team is trying
| to get you do X and use feature Y, and another team is trying
| to get you to do Z and use feature W. Business Suite just
| mashes it all together. You could freeze the codebase today and
| study Business Suite for months and you'd find that it's dark
| patterns all the way down.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Why would Mozilla ship a hidden adware addon with system
| privileges to advertise a TV show?
|
| Why would Mozilla integrate a random 3rd party service without
| asking?
|
| Why would Mozilla send your browsing history to Cliqz?
|
| Why would Mozilla integrate Google tracking without ability to
| block?
|
| Why would Mozilla sell your data?
|
| Why would Mozilla install a telemetry service that gets
| reenabled after update even if you disabled it?
|
| Why would Mozilla lie like this?
|
| Because it's Mozilla.
| udev4096 wrote:
| > I'm okay with Mozilla handling my info as explained in this
| Privacy Notice.
|
| The irony by making that checkbox mandatory for submitting a
| privacy protest form
| paxys wrote:
| A social media company made an AI app that lets users share its
| results to social media. Shocker!
|
| But sure lets write an article with zero details and just the
| right amount of buzzwords and engagement bait that it'll make it
| to the top of HN and sustain today's outrage cycle. We'll go back
| to "Google is bad" tomorrow.
| gojomo wrote:
| Lacks context & examples to know what they're concerned about.
|
| Has a righteous, bossy tone that doesn't seem earned by case
| particulars or its (anonymous) author.
|
| "Mozilla: Improve your messaging. Now."
| hedayet wrote:
| Don't touch anything that comes out of Facebook. There, it's that
| simple. Facebook and its people can't be trusted <period>
| RadiozRadioz wrote:
| Why does this website not work correctly on FireFox Mobile? Good
| lord Mozilla, sort yourself out.
|
| (The viewport only covers 1/4 of my phone screen and I can scroll
| it around in the black abyss)
| pluc wrote:
| Stop asking and expecting a private for-profit corporation to do
| what you want or what you think is right. They are not there to
| serve you, they exist to profit off of you. Delete your account
| if you're unhappy with the service or the ethics.
| boroboro4 wrote:
| Mozilla post is quite bad at explaining what's wrong so I went to
| Meta AI app to try it myself:
|
| - When you have a chat it has "Share" button
|
| - When you click on the button it shows you a draft of the chat
| with "Post" button
|
| - Clicking on the "Post" publishes the chat to public and sends
| you to "Discover" tab
|
| - From published chat you can click on "send" icon to send link
| to the chat to someone else
|
| IMO it is in fact dark pattern and goes against of how people
| perceive "Share" action. The fact you can't share without making
| chat public is also not cool.
|
| For example top discover post I see right now is stylized picture
| of a baby, with original photo available if you open the post.
| I'm pretty sure the person who posted it was trying to share the
| picture with their relatives/friends.
|
| Overall: Meta at its "best", better to say sorry rather than ask
| for permission...
| lo0dot0 wrote:
| If you are unsure what you are doing, do not do it. For
| example, I just posted to hackernews. The button in my app says
| "submit", but doesn't warn me about posting to the internet. Is
| there any problem with that? No, because I know what I'm doing
| and anyone using the Internet should too.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| In all seriousness, who expects and decency, privacy, respect (of
| human rights) from the makers of Myanmar flame-fanning, the scum
| who allowed/facilitates Cambridge Analytica (and the likes), to
| name but a few?
|
| Perhaps Zuck wants to look like a good tech-bro by smiling at Joe
| Rogan and advertise "I am one of you guys, I too do BJJ", but in
| his soul he is a filthy snake who lies all the time ("FBI forced
| me and I railroaded you but 3 years later I come clean")..
|
| "...it's my nature, said the scorpion."
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Yes please. It's invasive garbage. When I click "uninterested" on
| ukraine war news I immediately got russian propaganda. When I do
| it again I get back Ukrainian news. I just dont want to see it.
| Same with politics. It's just switching sides which it shows when
| I click hide but I cant hide the theme as a whole.
|
| I recommend this extension. It blocks this ridiculous bullshit.
|
| https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/undistracted-hide-f...
| guluarte wrote:
| yep https://www.meta.ai/@halcon5555/prompt/jg3cmKxENMh
| dmix wrote:
| Why doesn't Mozilla provide any specific context?
| LoganDark wrote:
| I so don't understand why everyone's been taking the bait and
| calling this company Meta. I guess because the restructuring was
| intentional by Facebook for manipulation purposes (everyone
| mistrusted Facebook at that point and they needed a new identity
| in order to try to gain people's trust again), while Google
| doesn't really use Alphabet as a front because they seemingly
| don't care if people know them as evil.
|
| I very commonly see things like Google acquires this, Google
| acquires that, even in cases where the acquirer is actually
| Alphabet, but I almost never see anything about Facebook, because
| everyone's now calling them Meta. Maybe I'm fighting a losing
| battle at this point, but I will never forget their past actions
| nor malicious intentions just because they tried to change their
| name.
|
| I know the brand "Facebook" still exists for the social network,
| but Meta is still Facebook at its core. Same people, same values,
| same data harvesting. They're just using other methods to get at
| your data, abusing trust that maybe people wouldn't have given to
| Facebook if the name change hadn't occurred.
|
| I think I must feel a little bit like Louis Rossmann must've felt
| when Time Warner Cable changed their name to Comcast. He still
| holds all of their former misdeeds against them and I think it's
| a real shame that more people don't do that for Facebook.
|
| Sure in plenty of people's minds Meta is still its own entire
| dystopia and a half, but it still feels to me like they've all
| forgotten the precedent that Facebook set all the way back when
| that name was the one they put on their dystopia.
| axus wrote:
| To me, Facebook is the service I use as login credentials on
| McDonalds app and other companies, separate from my offline and
| online identities. Also it is a social network I don't engage
| with. Owned by Meta.
|
| WhatsApp is a chat program I use almost every day. Owned by
| Meta.
|
| Oculus was a brand of VR goggles, but now the brand name is
| Meta. Owned by Meta.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-06 23:00 UTC)