The WhatsApp Cofounder Who Sold ToFacebook For $19 Billion Tells Students To Delete Facebook
WhatsApp聯合創始人以190億美元的價格將其出售給Facebook，並告訴學生刪除Facebook
“That’s the bad part. We buy theirproducts. We sign up for these websites. Delete Facebook, right?”
“那是不好的一部分。我們買他們的產品。我們在這些網站上註冊。刪除Facebook，好嗎？“
Ryan Mac BuzzFeedNews Reporter
Ryan Mac BuzzFeed新聞記者
WhatsApp cofounder Brian Acton defended hisdecision to sell his company to Facebook for $19 billion and encouragedstudents to delete their accounts from the social network in a rare publicappearance at Stanford University on Wednesday.
WhatsApp聯合創始人布萊恩·阿克森（BrianActon）堅持自己以190億美元的價格將自己的公司出售給Facebook的決定，並於週三在斯坦福大學罕見的公開露面中鼓勵學生們從社交網絡中刪除他們的賬戶。
Despite selling WhatsApp in a deal thatmade him a billionaire several times over, Acton’s negative feelings aboutFacebook are no secret. He departed in November 2017 after more than threeyears at the company following tensions surrounding the introduction of adsonto the messaging platform, something he and fellow cofounder Jan Koumvehemently opposed. (Koum announced he was leaving Facebook last April, amid reports he disagreed with the company’s plans formonetizing WhatsApp and its approach to user data and privacy.)
儘管出售WhatsApp讓他成為億萬富翁，但Acton對Facebook的負面情緒並不是秘密。他在公司工作了三年多之後於2017年11月離職，此時公司打算將廣告植入該消息傳遞平臺，他與同事及共同創始人Jan Koum強烈反對植入廣告。（Koum宣佈他將於去年四月離開Facebook，因為有報道稱他不同意該公司將WhatsApp商業化及計劃利用其用戶數據和隱私。）
In March 2018, following Facebook’s dataprivacy failings involving political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, Actontweeted a call to “#deletefacebook.”
2018年3月，在Facebook涉及政治諮詢公司CambridgeAnalytica的數據隱私敗露之後，Acton發起了一場名為“#deletefacebook”的號召。
Wednesday’s appearance, in which he sharedthe stage with Ellora Israni, a former Facebook software engineer and cofounderof women’s diversity in tech initiative She++, was only the second time Actonhas spoken publicly about the deterioration of his relationship with the socialnetwork and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “I sold my users’ privacy to a largerbenefit,” Acton told Forbes in September, detailing the conflicts thateventually led to his departure. In the piece, Acton described how Facebook hadset goals for WhatsApp to hit a revenue run rate of $10 billion within fiveyears of monetizing by pushing ads and offering businesses ways to directlycommunicate with users.
星期三他與Ellora Israni一道出席，Ellora Israni是前臉書軟件工程師，也是倡議女性參與技術創新She ++組織的聯合創始人，這是Acton第二次公開談論他與社交網絡及其CEO馬克·扎克伯格的關係惡化。 “我把用戶的隱私賣給了更大的利益，”Acton在9月告訴福布斯，詳細說明最終導致他離職的衝突。在這篇文章中，Acton描述了Facebook如何設定WhatsApp的目標，即通過推廣廣告和為企業提供與用戶直接溝通的方式，在商業化WhatsApp的五年內實現100億美元的收入。
A WhatsApp spokesperson declined to commenton Acton's statements and instead pointed BuzzFeed News to a blog post from the company when it did away with the$1 fee in 2016.
“WhatsApp發言人拒絕就Acton的聲明發表評論，相反他告訴BuzzFeed News一篇該公司發佈的博客文章，文章上提到它於2016年取消了1美元費用。
In explaining WhatsApp’s earlydecision-making, Acton said the company built the features that people wanted,including end-to-end encryption, which multiple users requested before thecompany eventually instituted it across the platform. He also recalled hisearly model for WhatsApp was Craigslist, a company with a small number ofemployees that provided a public service and built a successful business without raising venturecapital.
在解釋WhatsApp的早期決策時，Acton表示該公司構建了人們想要的功能，包括端到端加密，這是多個用戶在公司最終研究於所有平臺實現端到端加密之前所要求的。他還回憶起他早期的WhatsApp模型基於Craigslist，這是一家擁有少量員工的公司，他們提供的是公共服務，並在不增加風險投資的情況下成功建立了這家企業。
Ultimately, WhatsApp diverged from thatideal and raised $60 million from Sequoia Capital before selling to Facebook.That change in ownership took away Acton and Koum’s decision-making power, withKoum joining the Facebook board. That left WhatsApp beholden to shareholdersand Zuckerberg, who still maintains voting control over the tech giant.
最終，WhatsApp偏離了這一理想，並在向Facebook出售之前從紅杉資本籌集了6000萬美元。所有權的變化剝奪了Acton和Koum的決策權，但Koum加入了Facebook董事會。這讓WhatsApp對股東和扎克伯格感激不盡，扎克伯格仍然對這家科技巨頭保有投票控制權。
“Accountability to shareholders absolutelydrives the decision-making and skews it,” he said. “At Facebook, they spent aninordinate amount of time figuring out how they can get into China.”
Last week, BuzzFeed News reported thatFacebook would no longer pursue a plan to push its social networkinto China, following the publication of a long note from Zuckerberg in whichhe emphasized a privacy-first vision for the company’s variousmessaging applications. Acton applauded Facebook’s decision to not placeservers in China, and referenced how other businesses make Faustian bargains tooperate in the country. Apple, for example, a company he considers to have astrong track record with user privacy, has servers in China in order to sellits devices to the some 1.4 billion people in the country.
“對股東的責任絕對會推動決策並使其產生偏差，”他說。“在Facebook公司，他們花費了大量時間來搞懂他們如何才能進入中國。”上週，BuzzFeed News報道稱，在扎克伯格發表長篇報告後，Facebook將不再執行將其社交網絡傳播到中國的計劃，其中他強調了該公司各種消息傳遞應用中隱私是第一位的。 Acton讚揚Facebook不在中國設置服務器的決定，並引用其他企業如何在該國運營的案例。例如，蘋果公司，他認為該公司在用戶隱私方面擁有良好的記錄，該公司在中國設有服務器，以便向全國約14億人銷售其設備。
While that utilitarian calculation downplaysthe negative consequences of an unmoderated platform, including thefacilitation of the spread of disinformation and the incitement of violence, Acton has held fast to the idea ofnot interfering. “I think it’s impossible,” he said when asked about moderatingcontent. “To be brutally honest, the curated networks — the open networks —struggle to decide what’s hate speech and what’s not hate speech. ... Applestruggles to decide what’s a good app and what’s a bad app. Google struggleswith what’s a good website and what’s a bad website. These companies are notequipped to make these decisions.”
雖然這種功利主義的計算淡化了未經調節的平臺的負面後果，包括促進虛假信息傳播和煽動暴力，但Acton堅持不干涉的想法。“我認為這是不可能的，”當被問及調節內容時他說。“老實說，一個河蟹的網絡 - 開放的網絡 - 很難決定什麼是仇恨言論，什麼不令人討厭的言論。 ...蘋果很難決定什麼是好應用，什麼是壞應用。谷歌正在努力尋找如何區分一個好的網站和一個糟糕的網站的方法。這些公司沒有能力做出這些決定。“
“And we give them the power,” he continued.“That’s the bad part. We buy their products. We sign up for these websites.Delete Facebook, right?”
“是我們給了他們這種力量，”他繼續道。“那是不好的一部分。我們買他們的產品。我們在這些網站上註冊。所以刪除Facebook，好嗎？“
評論翻譯
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 轉載請註明出處
SaintPoost
85 points·2 hours ago
Haven't experienced this but what I haveexperienced has made me a much better person for it.
This is an experience I wish the world tofeel and see and think of for generations to come.
Shame the Classes of drugs in America arefucked up beyond all recognition.
沒有經歷過這個，但我所經歷的使我成為一個更好的人。這是一種我希望世界在未來幾代人中感受，看到和思考的經歷。恥辱的美國毒品分類已被搞砸了。
F90
99 points·2 hours ago
I have found it's a roulette once you killyour ego. You either gain lots ofself consciousness and live a happy life orgain lots of self consciousness and end up in an existential crisis/depression.
我發現一旦你失去了你的自我，它就會變成輪盤賭。你要麼獲得大量的自我意識，過上幸福的生活，要麼失去大量的自我意識，最終陷入存在危機/沮喪中。
level 8
NotSoSlenderMan
23 points·1 hour ago
I’ve had very limited usage and all of themso far have had a positive impact. But like my usage it has been limited. Allof it has been during festivals and upon returning home and to my “normal”life, all of my issues return and it’s like nothing has changed.
That’s why I hope these studies inmicrodosing provide effective results and help turn the tide of the war ondrugs.
A consistent, regimented use I feel wouldhelp my mental state greatly. I just lack access and of course even with accessthe risk of legal trouble.
我的使用非常有限，到目前為止所有這些都產生了積極的影響。但就像我的用法一樣，它受到了限制。所有這一切都是在節日期間，一旦回到家鄉和我的“正常”生活中，我的所有問題都回來了，就像沒有任何改變一樣。這就是為什麼我希望微劑量西毒能夠提供有效的幫助，並有助於扭轉毒品戰爭的潮流。我覺得一貫的，有條理的使用會極大地幫助我的精神狀態。我只是缺乏權限，當然即使是違背法律的權限。
pirate3278
12 points·38 minutes ago
SMS are sent in plain text, so ifintercepted anyone can read the message. Whereas, WhatsApp uses E2E encryption,so only the holders of the private key can read the message.
The problems with WhatsApp is the metadata.A normal SMS sends relatively little metadata along with the message. WhileWhatsApp sends everything it can. And with the metadata Facebook can build up apretty accurate picture of you and in some circumstances even deduce what is inthe message.
The best IM is signal as it uses E2Eencryption and sends as little metadata as possible (which is deleted as soonas possible). You can also trust signal more as it is open source. Whereas, theonly part of WhatsApp that is open source is the encryption algorithm.
SMS以純文本形式發送，因此如果被截獲，任何人都可以閱讀該消息。 然而，WhatsApp使用E2E加密，因此只有私鑰的持有者才能閱讀該消息。WhatsApp的問題是元數據。普通SMS與消息一起發送相對較少的元數據。雖然WhatsApp發送了所有可能的東西。通過元數據，Facebook可以為您構建一個非常準確的圖片，在某些情況下甚至可以推斷出消息中的內容。最好的IM是信號，因為它使用E2E加密並儘可能少地發送元數據（儘快刪除）。您也可以更多信任信號，因為它是開源的。然而，WhatsApp開源的唯一部分是加密算法。
JonnySucio
3 points·10 minutes ago
I use signal for my main SMS app, but fromwhat I understand, it is most effective when both parties have signal. That'sgood for the most part, between my good friends who also use signal, but 99% ofpeople I encounter out there are using their normal built in SMS app. In theUSA, WhatsApp isn't so popular, but in Mexico EVERYONE uses it. It's simply theonly way for people like me to keep in contact with family/ friends in Mexicoand central America.
Those saying that you should deleteWhatsApp don't really offer a valid alternative.
我使用信號作為我的主要短信應用程序，但據我所知，當雙方都有信號時，它是最有效的。這在大多數情況下都很好，我的好朋友也使用信號，但我遇到的99％的人都使用他們正常的內置短信應用程序。在美國，WhatsApp並不那麼受歡迎，但在墨西哥，每個人都使用它。對於像我這樣的人來說，這是與墨西哥和中美洲的家人/朋友保持聯繫的唯一途徑。那些說你應該刪除WhatsApp的人真的沒有提供有效的選擇。
SureBonus
7 points·32 minutes ago
No it's still a dummy account with nopersonal info facebook can abuse. I personally haven't tried it but a friend ofmine does. It seems to work really well except some people not so close to himcall him by his his fake name. Everyone else just views his facebook pseudonymas a nickname
不，它仍然是一個虛擬帳戶，沒有個人信息可以讓Facebook濫用。我個人沒有嘗試過，但是我的一個朋友試過。它似乎工作得很好，除了一些不那麼親近的人用他的假名稱呼他。其他人只是將他的facebook假名視為暱稱
level 8
MisanthropeX
10 points·21 minutes ago
Facebook keeps "shadow profiles"on people who don't have facebook accounts by harvesting information from theirfriends, and the second you sign up with an account that information is linkedto you. You absolutely cannot keep a "dummy account," facebook hasways to get around that.
Facebook通過從他們的朋友那裡獲取信息來保留沒有facebook帳戶的人的“影子資料”，第二，你註冊了一個賬號，上面的信息就會和你產生鏈接。你不能保持一個絕對的“虛擬賬戶”，Facebook有辦法解決這個問題。
XXX-XXX-XXX
37 points·1 hour ago
Just have the account and not postanything, only log on once a day on the same pc every time to check messagesand event invites only.
Thats what I do, my extended family has alarge group that we all use to keep in touch and plan get togethers, and myreserve uses it to update on things in the community and opportunities likefree classes and workshops and events.
I also deleted every single like, group,note, app, etc. I might use their service, but the only data they can get fromme is personal messages, which admittedly is still an uncomfortable invasion,but I mean, its inconsequential.
只需擁有該帳戶而不發佈任何內容，只能在同一臺PC上每天登錄一次，以便僅查看郵件和活動邀請。我就是這麼幹的，我的大家庭有一個大的群組，我們都用它來保持聯繫並計劃聚會，我把它保留起來使用它來更新社區裡的事情，獲得像是免費課程，研討會和聚會活動的機會。我也刪除了每一個像是群組，筆記，應用程序之類的東西。我可能會使用他們的服務，但他們可以從我這裡得到的唯一數據是個人信息，這無疑是一種令人不舒服的入侵，但我的意思是，它無關緊要。
shuhteed46
Fyi they have cookies in your browser. Partof the reason you'll see ads for similar things you've browsed or searched onGoogle. You may also want to clear your browser cache and only login incognitoto prevent cookies being saved. That is if you actually care about the infothey have on you.
他們在瀏覽器中有cookie。您會看到與您在Google上瀏覽或搜索的類似內容的廣告就有部分原因基於此。您可能還希望清除瀏覽器緩存並隱身登錄以防止Cookie被保存。如果你真的關心他們竊取你的信息這才是你該做的。
閱讀更多 龍騰網看世界 的文章
