> but I’m not sure it would have happened without the public shaming.
It wouldn’t. From the article:
> The move is a surprise reversal of Zoom’s previous stance, in which the company treated the vulnerability as “low risk” and defended its use
They’re backpedaling because of the bad press, not because they think this is better for users. And if they don’t believe what they did was wrong (if they did, they would have never done it or would have fixed it previously), it’s just a matter of time until they pull other crap like this. This is not the only user-hostile behaviour of their app[1], it’s just the most egregious we know of.
It wouldn’t. From the article:
> The move is a surprise reversal of Zoom’s previous stance, in which the company treated the vulnerability as “low risk” and defended its use
They’re backpedaling because of the bad press, not because they think this is better for users. And if they don’t believe what they did was wrong (if they did, they would have never done it or would have fixed it previously), it’s just a matter of time until they pull other crap like this. This is not the only user-hostile behaviour of their app[1], it’s just the most egregious we know of.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20390613