Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #148887

Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.

Show key headers only | View raw

Marion <marion@facts.com> writes:

> Does Facebook provide free calls? Or do you mean WhatsApp instead?

Both Facebook and Whatsapp are owned by Meta. Meta is the problem. Meta
owns Instagram too.

>
> I get my free calls (in & out) with Google Voice (on the iPad only).
> (Google Voice on Android creates a Google Account on the device!)
>
> It calls any number (including POTS) and it receives from any number.
> And it sends the voicemail to an email address. All for free.
>
> But it won't call Europe for free.
>
> SO I use WhatsApp (with the separate dialer so I don't have WA
> contacts).  Everyone I know in Germany uses WhatsApp (which is one
> reason I use it).
>
> The other reason for WhatsApp (without the dialer) is that I get
> grandchildren and now great grandchildren videos daily and they're all
> messed up on my PUlseSMS Android messenger from the iPhone parents.

I don't know what individuals can do, but organisations shouldn't be
using these things and advertising "contact us with whatsapp, follow us
on facebook" etc. Meta breaks the law.

I have used Amazon Echo to make free calls, it is very tempting to do
when you want to phone the council and they stick you in a queue for
half an hour. Nothing is really free, you pay a price of some sort, if
not money then data. Voipfone is reasonable for calling landlines at
1.2ppm in the UK, but any company could be tempted to make a bit extra
from data. Calls to USA landlines (not Alaska) and mobiles 2p.

Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

“Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 20:47 +0200
  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-06-13 20:34 +0100
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 23:07 +0200
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 23:11 +0200
  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-14 01:03 -0500
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 14:59 +0200
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-14 09:08 -0500
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 16:28 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-06-14 16:14 +0100
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-06-14 17:01 +0100
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 19:35 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 19:29 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-06-15 00:34 +0200
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 19:55 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:28 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:41 +0200
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 16:27 +0200
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 19:57 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-14 19:50 +0000
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:48 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-15 00:15 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Bob Henson <bob.henson@outlook.com> - 2025-06-15 09:05 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 01:40 +0200
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-18 11:43 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-18 14:19 +0200
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-06-22 10:15 +0000
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-22 13:30 +0200
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-06-22 19:20 +0000
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-22 21:40 +0200
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-22 23:17 +0100
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-15 03:42 +0000
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 02:00 +0200
            Re: ⤽Localhost trackingâ€? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-06-15 11:45 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-14 20:51 +0100
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:34 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-14 21:45 +0100
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-15 03:46 +0000
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-15 09:49 +0100
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:29 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:43 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-15 07:10 +0200
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 01:51 +0200
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-06-15 00:32 +0200

csiph-web