WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

(www.nytimes.com)

Show context

andrepd ◴[16 Jun 25 14:00 UTC] No.44289568[source]▶

>>44289412 (OP) #

Would be nice if these kinds of articles would at least take a paragraph to plug some alternatives, such as Signal.

replies(6): >>44289598 #>>44289607 #>>44289679 #>>44289691 #>>44293594 #>>44295428 #

1. jraby3 ◴[16 Jun 25 14:03 UTC] No.44289598[source]▶

>>44289568 #

WhatsApp has long promoted itself as a safe alternative to apps like Telegram and Google’s Android messaging. Users flocked to the app globally, finding it a cheap and secure alternative to texting, particularly people in unstable political climates and authoritarian countries, since its messages cannot be easily intercepted without access to personal devices.

replies(1): >>44289662 #

2. angry_octet ◴[16 Jun 25 14:10 UTC] No.44289662[source]▶

>>44289598 (TP) #

This reply screams LLM. Not really responding to the parent comment, nauseatingly anodyne in content. Not wrong, but not right. Will HN be overwhelmed with LLM trash?

replies(3): >>44289700 #>>44289759 #>>44295454 #

3. add-sub-mul-div ◴[16 Jun 25 14:14 UTC] No.44289700[source]▶

>>44289662 #

With all the LLM enthusiasts here why would HN not be at the forefront of it?

4. gloxkiqcza ◴[16 Jun 25 14:18 UTC] No.44289759[source]▶

>>44289662 #

It’s a quote from the linked article.

replies(1): >>44304979 #

5. eviks ◴[17 Jun 25 03:21 UTC] No.44295454[source]▶

>>44289662 #

Your llm detector needs serious calibration

6. angry_octet ◴[17 Jun 25 23:06 UTC] No.44304979{3}[source]▶

>>44289759 #

But why reply with a snippet like that? Just a normal non-sequitur, or a machine regurgitation?

↑