Meta: Shut down your invasive AI Discover feed

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.

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.

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.

Seems odd to me, I use the app and it has never once nudged me to share anything?

Thank you, the linked article was completely unclear and vague on what the issue was.

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.

That context should be in there. Give me the facts or else it’s just whining.

Honestly, even after (quickly) reading the context, I still don't know why Mozilla had such a strong reaction to this.

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".

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?

> 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.

> > 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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

[flagged]

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.

Should probably be: "Dear Meta: ..."

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...

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.

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.

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.

And from Mozilla business as well

I agree, but I am more of the mindset that we should be getting off all platforms if possible.

Only reason I use it is because of my meta ray bans. Once a competitive product comes out I’ll delete app immediately.

I don't understand the outrage about the court order and chatgpt. Is user data retained by a tech co somehow exempt from discovery? Say you're suing a company over mishandling user data, wouldn't that data become material to the case?

To be fair, in this one Meta is intentionally publishing these on their front page, while OpenAI is subject to a legally mandated retention policy pursuant to an ongoing lawsuit. While I think both are problematic, the Meta one seems much more underhanded.

[flagged]