5 ms·

I got rid of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp about 4 years ago. Facebook and Instagram was easy, but people who have WhatsApp really think you’re weird for no

I got rid of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp about 4 years ago. Facebook and Instagram was easy, but people who have WhatsApp really think you’re weird for not having it. Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent. If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.

red_trumpet 5y ago
I mostly agree with your comment, having deleted WhatsApp myself this spring. However I have a problem with that. > many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent Did you not use the same network effect to get people to join Signal/Telegram? While I agree that Signal is morally better (being a non-profit and all), it is still a closed garden, which makes such network effects possible. And this in itself is a moral issue, I think. Personally I would like to use a system like, where everyone can choose his own server. But nobody in my social circle uses it, so I'm stuck with walled gardens...
- shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
  My issue is with Facebook, not with the network effect itself. Happy to use the network effect to get people off Facebook.
- jakecopp 5y ago
  Get them onto Element, it's brilliant! [1]. Matrix is an aggressively open garden - it even bridges to other social networks [2]. [1]: https://element.io/ https://element.io/ [2]: https://matrix.org/bridges/ https://matrix.org/bridges/
  - arnoooooo 5y ago
    I would not call Element brilliant. I have had a hard time getting others to adopt it. Fluffychat (Matrix client as well) is more user-friendly.
- asdff 5y ago
  IRC never went anywhere, you aren't stuck.
dotancohen 5y ago
I could have written this comment word for word. People get _offended_ when you tell them that you don't have Whatsapp. But I let them hold that hot coal themselves.
- zionic 5y ago
  This is so strange, no one in my social circle uses WhatsApp or has ever asked me to use it to talk to them. It’s all iMessage, Snapchat, and a growing group of people on Signal.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    It can depend a lot on where in the world you and your friend group are or are from. It's quite popular with the Indian H1B contractors in my office in the US for example but not too many of my US friends use it. Same story with my fiancé and her lab groups which have a lot of European grad students and post docs, it's quite common there too.
  - emerged 5y ago
    Same here, I’ve never even heard someone I know say the word “WhatsApp” in my life.
  - lucasverra 5y ago
    Usa? Cause what parent described is common in EU + LATAM
  - Flashtoo 5y ago
    I assume you're in the US. In most of Europe Whatsapp is the main communication platform. SMS is dead and Android is more popular than iOS, so no iMessage either.
  - shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
    Understandably, people who don’t use WhatsApp, don’t think it’s weird that other people don’t use WhatsApp. People who do have WhatsApp, probably have it, because most of the people they know have it.
Helmut10001 5y ago
Use mautrix-whatsapp [1] on a home server to bridge Matrix chat to WhatsApp and (optionally) add a dedicated VoIP phone number for WhatApp. Allows you to connect to/chat with WhatApp users using Matrix/Element. [1]: https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp
- nisegami 5y ago
  Not GP commenter, but I suspect you're mistaking a functional issue (not wanting to use Whatsapp's applications) from a moral issue (not wanting to use the Whatsapp platform).
  - Helmut10001 5y ago
    Somewhat you are right - but it is difficult to differentiate between the two: I don't want to use Whatsapp for moral issues, but I also a) don't want to loose connections to people who still use the platform and b) I don't believe in actiely convincing peole of anything. They have to reach these conclusions themselves - until then, I can choose mautrix to stay connected, limiting my interaction with the platform to the bare minimum.
- lucasverra 5y ago
  how to ping you to know a bit more of that experience ?
  - chagaif 5y ago
    I have also been using this for nearly a year now, you can reach me at https://chagai.website https://chagai.website
croh 5y ago
Why isnt it possible to delete amazon account permanently ? Amazon still doesn't give option to delete purchase history which is kind of super annoying.
- Traster 5y ago
  I think Amazon is actually a different story to a certain extent. Sure, you can delete your account, but at the end of the day you've transacted with them and they can keep a record of who they've transacted with, right? Personally I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it.
  - malka 5y ago
    > I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it. Why ? for recent transaction, they need to keep it for tax purposes but they have no legal need to keep old records.
    - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
      In some countries, they need to keep it for 10 years for tax and audit reasons. I wouldn't call 10 years "recent transactions". Heck, for most of the online shops, it's more like "forever".
      - Sosh101 5y ago
        Which countries?
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I don't think "need" matters here. They have a record of a transaction, and they want to keep that record. I don't think I have a right to demand that they delete that data. The GDPR/CCPA/etc. likely has different requirements here, and probably requires deletion after they're no longer needed (for tax purposes or whatever). But I personally have financial records going back decades, so I can't fault a company for wanting to do the same thing.
orangepanda 5y ago
> Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent. Network effect is irrelevant for pure messaging services. If someone needs to talk to you, they'll send a pigeon if they have to.
- shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
  Which messaging app do you think most people would join… one with nobody else using it, or one with everyone else using?
- lopis 5y ago
  You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you. Then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they? If they were, they might make an effort, no?
    - kelnos 5y ago
      Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships. A good point. I can't (and don't pretend to) speak for anyone else, but I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those. Take from that what you will.
jasode 5y ago
>Deleting WhatsApp, [...], has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent. This practical application of your advice depends on where a particular person sits in their social hierarchy. E.g. an influential person that's a "hub" or "connector" in their social circle can switch from WhatsApp to Signal ... or insist on email only ... or insist on no email and only hardcopy snail mail (Donald Knuth) -- and others will follow their lead or accommodate them. On the other hand, if you're one of the folks at the "spokes" or "edges" of social graphs... being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you. The above difference in social influence happens in Asia countries where many use WhatsApp beyond personal relationships for business to sell items or find work. If the business contacts you depend on for getting income use WhatsApp, you deleting WhatsApp just means you get $0 because they'd rather deal with other vendors who don't force them the hassle of switching to Signal. Power and leverage in social graphs matter.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > because others don't care to switch to reach you. I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. Contrary to popular belief is that you don't miss out on anything. Business contacts are another matter, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. Same principle applies. If they don't make the effort, it wasn't a good contact anyway, although there are side effects because convinience is important. A bit of excentricity isn't a deal breaker, on the contrary. Clout chasing is exactly the angle social media tries to satisfy.
  - jasode 5y ago
    >I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. That's a common counterargument that's similar to "then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they?!?" -- but oversimplifies the complexity of social life. It's not a simple binary dichotomy between "very good friends" and "no friends". People also have an in-between status of "weak ties" that are mutually beneficial : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties These types of relationships are more fragile and easier to "lose" by putting up barriers to communication. It's not realistic to impose a condition of "either you follow me to the Signal network or you weren't really my friend at all" on the whole world. Everybody doesn't have same weight of importance to everyone else and that's ok. Dunbar's Number may also be relevant here. >, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. No they don't if you're one of hundreds of "disposable vendors" in Asia or other parts of the world using WhatsApp for business. The other business professional (with more leverage) just ignores your excentricity and works with others who don't inconvenience them. >, although there are side effects If the "side effects" are $0 income, that's a really big deal. It seems like you swept this aside. >Clout chasing It's not about about chasing "clout". Unfortunately, I used the word "influential" and I forgot that it has been tainted by recent phenomenon of "social media influencer". I couldn't think of a better word for "significant connector node on a social graph" other than "influential". (I think it's irony that by Donald Knuth insisting on USPS snail mail for correspondence -- and people actually getting past that friction to contact him -- that actually proves he has clout.) In any case, I think your perspective is shaped by your experience in Western Europe so you really can't empathize with how some people (farmers, etc) depend on WhatsApp for their livelihood. They don't use it like a TikTok type of social network.
nicbou 5y ago
In Europe, people just assume that you have it. I often get the first contact from pensions and airbnbs on WhatsApp. I convinced a few people to switch to Telegram, but there are still a few stragglers on WhatsApp and even Facebook Messenger.
- throwaway525142 5y ago
  I believe Telegram is inferior to WhatsApp due to missing default end-to-end encryption.
- Pawka 5y ago
  I'd say in parts of Europe. E.g. in Slavic regions Telegram is popular. In other regions Signal. Among my circles FB messenger seems to be the most popular.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  It is sadly very common in western europe, but you can easily live without it too.
waylandsmithers 5y ago
Maybe I'm just old or out of it? I've never used WhatsApp and don't see why I would need any chat apps other than just normal texting on my iPhone.
- mgarciaisaia 5y ago
  It's not that you're old - you simply are not that poor. WhatsApp first value proposition has been to enable cheap ("free") messaging while, at least here in Argentina, SMS would still cost a lot of money. The Android SMS experience is bad, too - or at least it's not a nice one. Add groups, multimedia, audio calls with no long-distance fee, or even video calls (I don't think the phone system offers an alternative, at least here), and all of that being "cross-manufacturer" (we have 92% Android users here, so you still don't want to leave your two iOS friends out) and it's pretty much clear why WhatsApp works best. Signal & Telegram could have make it, too - but WhatsApp was probably first, and they offered support for some feature phones back then when they still were around.
dmead 5y ago
I don't understand how telegram is less immoral than Facebook.
- shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
  Because it doesn’t collect personal data to sell to advertisers.
  - dmead 5y ago
    Just the Russian government. Like I said...
- fsckboy 5y ago
  Facebook is a monopolist, Telegram is not
wintermutestwin 5y ago
Is the problem that a lot of non-US mobile providers don't include SMS for free? I'm probably showing my ignorance around SMS and iMessage, but why can't SMS simply use your data allowance? Doesn't iMessage do this?
- mimentum 5y ago
  SMS runs through a different protocol and has different set standards; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS iMessage is a proprietary messaging system
  - wintermutestwin 5y ago
    Any idea why so many providers charge for SMS?
    - kelnos 5y ago
      Simply put, because they can. They may have a monopoly or near-monopoly on SMS service, so they can do what they want. That was the state of affairs in the US until fairly recently; most carriers (in the US at least) offer a pretty standard plan that includes unlimited texting.
xtracto 5y ago
I find Whats App to be the easiest of the 3: Whoever has WhatsApp has a mobile phone. So, it's just a matter of sending them SMS instead of WhatsApp. The odd situation is when contacting companies via WhatsApp, but most companies usually have alternative methods of contact.
wutbrodo 5y ago
> If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know. Is this really true? I do a smattering of weird/non-conformist things for moral reasons, and people are always _overly_ interested. IME, if you say "I don't do X for moral reasons" to someone who does X, they take it as a personal attack. It's closely related to the concept of "anticipated reproach". While they may pay lip service to it, most people aren't fundamentally able to understand the concept of moral pluralism/relativism, and won't be satisfied with "I think it's wrong but it's no black mark on you if you don't think it is".
asdff 5y ago
Do you live outside the US? I always hear how popular WhatsApp is on here but honestly I don't know a single person who uses that app in the US. Or any chat platform for that matter. Everyone just texts and calls at least in my younger millenial circle. I guess in other countries they still charge for texts and calls like its 2002 and maybe WhatsApp is more popular there to get around paying for each text message?
- kelnos 5y ago
  I live in the US, and there are 4 or 5 people I talk to via WhatsApp as our primary communications channel. I'm also a member of 2 or 3 group chats that are used occasionally that I get value out of. I managed to move one group chat over to Signal, but the others didn't budge. I also find that WhatsApp is often the go-to for short-term ad-hoc group chats, like for a bunch of people who are on a trip or vacation together.

red_trumpet 5y ago

I mostly agree with your comment, having deleted WhatsApp myself this spring. However I have a problem with that. > many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent Did you not use the same network effect to get people to join Signal/Telegram? While I agree that Signal is morally better (being a non-profit and all), it is still a closed garden, which makes such network effects possible. And this in itself is a moral issue, I think. Personally I would like to use a system like, where everyone can choose his own server. But nobody in my social circle uses it, so I'm stuck with walled gardens...

shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
My issue is with Facebook, not with the network effect itself. Happy to use the network effect to get people off Facebook.
jakecopp 5y ago
Get them onto Element, it's brilliant! [1]. Matrix is an aggressively open garden - it even bridges to other social networks [2]. [1]: https://element.io/ https://element.io/ [2]: https://matrix.org/bridges/ https://matrix.org/bridges/
- arnoooooo 5y ago
  I would not call Element brilliant. I have had a hard time getting others to adopt it. Fluffychat (Matrix client as well) is more user-friendly.
asdff 5y ago
IRC never went anywhere, you aren't stuck.

dotancohen 5y ago

I could have written this comment word for word. People get _offended_ when you tell them that you don't have Whatsapp. But I let them hold that hot coal themselves.

zionic 5y ago
This is so strange, no one in my social circle uses WhatsApp or has ever asked me to use it to talk to them. It’s all iMessage, Snapchat, and a growing group of people on Signal.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  It can depend a lot on where in the world you and your friend group are or are from. It's quite popular with the Indian H1B contractors in my office in the US for example but not too many of my US friends use it. Same story with my fiancé and her lab groups which have a lot of European grad students and post docs, it's quite common there too.
- emerged 5y ago
  Same here, I’ve never even heard someone I know say the word “WhatsApp” in my life.
- lucasverra 5y ago
  Usa? Cause what parent described is common in EU + LATAM
- Flashtoo 5y ago
  I assume you're in the US. In most of Europe Whatsapp is the main communication platform. SMS is dead and Android is more popular than iOS, so no iMessage either.
- shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
  Understandably, people who don’t use WhatsApp, don’t think it’s weird that other people don’t use WhatsApp. People who do have WhatsApp, probably have it, because most of the people they know have it.

Helmut10001 5y ago

Use mautrix-whatsapp [1] on a home server to bridge Matrix chat to WhatsApp and (optionally) add a dedicated VoIP phone number for WhatApp. Allows you to connect to/chat with WhatApp users using Matrix/Element. [1]: https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp

nisegami 5y ago
Not GP commenter, but I suspect you're mistaking a functional issue (not wanting to use Whatsapp's applications) from a moral issue (not wanting to use the Whatsapp platform).
- Helmut10001 5y ago
  Somewhat you are right - but it is difficult to differentiate between the two: I don't want to use Whatsapp for moral issues, but I also a) don't want to loose connections to people who still use the platform and b) I don't believe in actiely convincing peole of anything. They have to reach these conclusions themselves - until then, I can choose mautrix to stay connected, limiting my interaction with the platform to the bare minimum.
lucasverra 5y ago
how to ping you to know a bit more of that experience ?
- chagaif 5y ago
  I have also been using this for nearly a year now, you can reach me at https://chagai.website https://chagai.website

croh 5y ago

Why isnt it possible to delete amazon account permanently ? Amazon still doesn't give option to delete purchase history which is kind of super annoying.

Traster 5y ago
I think Amazon is actually a different story to a certain extent. Sure, you can delete your account, but at the end of the day you've transacted with them and they can keep a record of who they've transacted with, right? Personally I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it.
- malka 5y ago
  > I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it. Why ? for recent transaction, they need to keep it for tax purposes but they have no legal need to keep old records.
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    In some countries, they need to keep it for 10 years for tax and audit reasons. I wouldn't call 10 years "recent transactions". Heck, for most of the online shops, it's more like "forever".
    - Sosh101 5y ago
      Which countries?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I don't think "need" matters here. They have a record of a transaction, and they want to keep that record. I don't think I have a right to demand that they delete that data. The GDPR/CCPA/etc. likely has different requirements here, and probably requires deletion after they're no longer needed (for tax purposes or whatever). But I personally have financial records going back decades, so I can't fault a company for wanting to do the same thing.

orangepanda 5y ago

> Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent. Network effect is irrelevant for pure messaging services. If someone needs to talk to you, they'll send a pigeon if they have to.

shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
Which messaging app do you think most people would join… one with nobody else using it, or one with everyone else using?
lopis 5y ago
You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you. Then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they? If they were, they might make an effort, no?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships. A good point. I can't (and don't pretend to) speak for anyone else, but I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those. Take from that what you will.

jasode 5y ago

>Deleting WhatsApp, [...], has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent. This practical application of your advice depends on where a particular person sits in their social hierarchy. E.g. an influential person that's a "hub" or "connector" in their social circle can switch from WhatsApp to Signal ... or insist on email only ... or insist on no email and only hardcopy snail mail (Donald Knuth) -- and others will follow their lead or accommodate them. On the other hand, if you're one of the folks at the "spokes" or "edges" of social graphs... being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you. The above difference in social influence happens in Asia countries where many use WhatsApp beyond personal relationships for business to sell items or find work. If the business contacts you depend on for getting income use WhatsApp, you deleting WhatsApp just means you get $0 because they'd rather deal with other vendors who don't force them the hassle of switching to Signal. Power and leverage in social graphs matter.

raxxorrax 5y ago
> because others don't care to switch to reach you. I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. Contrary to popular belief is that you don't miss out on anything. Business contacts are another matter, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. Same principle applies. If they don't make the effort, it wasn't a good contact anyway, although there are side effects because convinience is important. A bit of excentricity isn't a deal breaker, on the contrary. Clout chasing is exactly the angle social media tries to satisfy.
- jasode 5y ago
  >I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. That's a common counterargument that's similar to "then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they?!?" -- but oversimplifies the complexity of social life. It's not a simple binary dichotomy between "very good friends" and "no friends". People also have an in-between status of "weak ties" that are mutually beneficial : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties These types of relationships are more fragile and easier to "lose" by putting up barriers to communication. It's not realistic to impose a condition of "either you follow me to the Signal network or you weren't really my friend at all" on the whole world. Everybody doesn't have same weight of importance to everyone else and that's ok. Dunbar's Number may also be relevant here. >, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. No they don't if you're one of hundreds of "disposable vendors" in Asia or other parts of the world using WhatsApp for business. The other business professional (with more leverage) just ignores your excentricity and works with others who don't inconvenience them. >, although there are side effects If the "side effects" are $0 income, that's a really big deal. It seems like you swept this aside. >Clout chasing It's not about about chasing "clout". Unfortunately, I used the word "influential" and I forgot that it has been tainted by recent phenomenon of "social media influencer". I couldn't think of a better word for "significant connector node on a social graph" other than "influential". (I think it's irony that by Donald Knuth insisting on USPS snail mail for correspondence -- and people actually getting past that friction to contact him -- that actually proves he has clout.) In any case, I think your perspective is shaped by your experience in Western Europe so you really can't empathize with how some people (farmers, etc) depend on WhatsApp for their livelihood. They don't use it like a TikTok type of social network.

nicbou 5y ago

In Europe, people just assume that you have it. I often get the first contact from pensions and airbnbs on WhatsApp. I convinced a few people to switch to Telegram, but there are still a few stragglers on WhatsApp and even Facebook Messenger.

throwaway525142 5y ago
I believe Telegram is inferior to WhatsApp due to missing default end-to-end encryption.
Pawka 5y ago
I'd say in parts of Europe. E.g. in Slavic regions Telegram is popular. In other regions Signal. Among my circles FB messenger seems to be the most popular.
raxxorrax 5y ago
It is sadly very common in western europe, but you can easily live without it too.

waylandsmithers 5y ago

Maybe I'm just old or out of it? I've never used WhatsApp and don't see why I would need any chat apps other than just normal texting on my iPhone.

mgarciaisaia 5y ago
It's not that you're old - you simply are not that poor. WhatsApp first value proposition has been to enable cheap ("free") messaging while, at least here in Argentina, SMS would still cost a lot of money. The Android SMS experience is bad, too - or at least it's not a nice one. Add groups, multimedia, audio calls with no long-distance fee, or even video calls (I don't think the phone system offers an alternative, at least here), and all of that being "cross-manufacturer" (we have 92% Android users here, so you still don't want to leave your two iOS friends out) and it's pretty much clear why WhatsApp works best. Signal & Telegram could have make it, too - but WhatsApp was probably first, and they offered support for some feature phones back then when they still were around.

dmead 5y ago

I don't understand how telegram is less immoral than Facebook.

shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
Because it doesn’t collect personal data to sell to advertisers.
- dmead 5y ago
  Just the Russian government. Like I said...
fsckboy 5y ago
Facebook is a monopolist, Telegram is not

wintermutestwin 5y ago

Is the problem that a lot of non-US mobile providers don't include SMS for free? I'm probably showing my ignorance around SMS and iMessage, but why can't SMS simply use your data allowance? Doesn't iMessage do this?

mimentum 5y ago
SMS runs through a different protocol and has different set standards; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS iMessage is a proprietary messaging system
- wintermutestwin 5y ago
  Any idea why so many providers charge for SMS?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Simply put, because they can. They may have a monopoly or near-monopoly on SMS service, so they can do what they want. That was the state of affairs in the US until fairly recently; most carriers (in the US at least) offer a pretty standard plan that includes unlimited texting.

xtracto 5y ago

I find Whats App to be the easiest of the 3: Whoever has WhatsApp has a mobile phone. So, it's just a matter of sending them SMS instead of WhatsApp. The odd situation is when contacting companies via WhatsApp, but most companies usually have alternative methods of contact.

wutbrodo 5y ago

> If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know. Is this really true? I do a smattering of weird/non-conformist things for moral reasons, and people are always _overly_ interested. IME, if you say "I don't do X for moral reasons" to someone who does X, they take it as a personal attack. It's closely related to the concept of "anticipated reproach". While they may pay lip service to it, most people aren't fundamentally able to understand the concept of moral pluralism/relativism, and won't be satisfied with "I think it's wrong but it's no black mark on you if you don't think it is".

asdff 5y ago

Do you live outside the US? I always hear how popular WhatsApp is on here but honestly I don't know a single person who uses that app in the US. Or any chat platform for that matter. Everyone just texts and calls at least in my younger millenial circle. I guess in other countries they still charge for texts and calls like its 2002 and maybe WhatsApp is more popular there to get around paying for each text message?

kelnos 5y ago
I live in the US, and there are 4 or 5 people I talk to via WhatsApp as our primary communications channel. I'm also a member of 2 or 3 group chats that are used occasionally that I get value out of. I managed to move one group chat over to Signal, but the others didn't budge. I also find that WhatsApp is often the go-to for short-term ad-hoc group chats, like for a bunch of people who are on a trip or vacation together.