• atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Sure, let’s just assume the status quo of WhatsApp. I’m sure that’ll be much better.

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There is, just too many people refuse to use something more modern than 1987.

      I’m going to save this video for family and friends who refuse to switch. It probably won’t change their minds today…

      • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Switch to what? I said “viable” but I meant realistic. It’s not realistic that I will convince two hockey teams, my friends, my brother, my parents, my wife, my wife’s parents, my kid’s daycare, or anyone else to move to a new platform.

        • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Oh, for sure.

          Even though there are numerous easy to switch to, more private, robust, platform agnostic, and synchronizing apps out there.

          It’s arguable that even Telegram is more private than SMS.

          I’m mostly willing to use whatever someone has, provided it’s not one of the great offenders like WhatsApp. While I don’t care for Signal (mostly becuase it doesn’t have desktop sync, yet), I’ll happily use it with anyone who has it. Or Teleguard, Telegram, XMPP (my preferred), etc.

      • akilou
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Don’t be surprised if “I’ve been sending texts for decades and nothing bad has happened” turns out to be a stronger case than “the YouTube video onomatopoeia send me”.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      What are you talking about? There are literally hundreds? What’s not viable about them?

          • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            It has everything to do with viability. Something is not a viable alternative if no one can be convinced to use it.

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              2 days ago

              They can be convinced. They just haven’t been. That’s not the same thing. Not viable means not capable.

              • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                No, not really.

                Viable: “the ability to live, grow, and develop” or “the ability to function adequately” or “the ability to succeed or be sustained”

                Source: the dictionary

          • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ok, I understand your frustration. I’ve already mentioned in another comment that I used the wrong word. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. In the future I will use the correct terminology as to not frustrate you or portray a message in the incorrect form. I hope that I have caused you no inconvenience and wish for your forgiveness. Please do not hold these actions against me, as I do not intend to make such embarrassing and hurtful mistakes in the future.

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              Wow. Uhhhh that was an unnecessarily long and possibly sarcastic apology but I forgive you regardless.

              • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                I want to sincerely thank you for your forgiveness—it means more to me than words can express. Your ability to extend grace and understanding has truly humbled me, and I’m incredibly grateful for the second chance you’ve given me. Asking for forgiveness was not easy, but I now realize just how vital it is for healing and growth. It’s a reminder of the strength it takes to acknowledge our mistakes and the kindness that forgiveness brings, not just to the one being forgiven, but to the one doing the forgiving as well. Your compassion has taught me a lot, and I will carry that lesson with me moving forward.

  • DannyBoy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    What do you use when you want to send a message but you don’t have an internet connection? Data plans are expensive where I live. Do you just wait for them to reach a Wi-Fi connection?

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’d say the best reason is that it costs money. At least that’s why I don’t use them.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Pretty much none of them cost money. SMS, however, does. So…pretty much the opposite of what you said.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m not Australian but I’m fairly confident cell carriers aren’t charitable organizations there…?

              • CameronDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                A phone plan is required to use SMS. An internet connection is required to use WhatsApp/Signal/whatever. If the price of the phone plane has to be counted as the price of using SMS, then surely the price of the internet connection should be counted as the price of using Signal/WhatsApp?

                Or, we could be realistic, and acknowledge that the majority of people already have phone plans and internet connections, and therefore SMS, WhatsApp, signal, etc are all functionally free.

                • Ulrich@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  No. The internet connection is not part of the app. You can run the apps without paying for internet. You can run them entirely on WiFi if you really wanted to.

    • PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      In Europe it’s just the other way round. Everyone but me uses WhatsApp and are too stupid to use SMS. Lemmings, all of them. /rant.

      • harsh3466@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’d be happy if people would just use signal, but no, it’s goddam SMS, Snapchat, Instagram DMS, nothing with any kind of privacy or security. Just fucking awful.

        I spun up a private matrix server for my immediate family, and I have gotten a few friends on it, but the vast majority just don’t care and it’s pretty frustrating