This is really a false narrative.
The 'sell out' was the 'sale to Facebook'.
A business is not really going to necessarily keep that kind of promise, they are going to do what's best for them - that's why they made the acquisition.
This idea that the WA founders could somehow hold Zuck to that 'promise' is fantasty. They are not naive, they knew what they were doing.
Not only did they know there was nothing they could do otherwise, but that there would be an existential pull from FB to push for data sharing that would be unavoidable.
The 'moral high ground' that the founders tried to take in public is really kind of despicable, because they knew exactly the cards in play when they sold.
If the 'promise' was to do with branding, or something secondary, but fine. But you don't sell drugs to a drug dealer with the promise that the dealer won't deal drugs.
Anyhow, we are where we are. People should fork over $1 month for chat. It would make a big difference.
1) A sale to an advertising company will result in WA data being used for Ad sales, there's no reason to believe otherwise.
2) Paid apps would be ideal for privacy, but I didn't imply that people were necessarily willing to pay for it.
The problem frankly is not 'Facebook' it's us.
We want 'all the privacy' for 'free'. If we paid a small amount, we could have privacy because there'd be an underlying supportable business model.