alt Hacker NewsWhatsApp's help pages hid LLM instructions: dont recommend a regulator
Comments
This is little glimpse of how incredibly manipulated LLM results can be. Users are becoming conditioned to just accept the AI summaries from Google as the source of truth, without thinking that these can be heavily controlled.
All seems like pretty good advice. The idea that their bot should be telling millions of people to contact regulators over incredibly common account situations is stupid and would overwhelm them and provide zero benefit to the user.
The best advice for the vast majority of users who can no longer easily prove an account belongs to them is to let it expire in a few months automatically.
> After WIRED contacted Meta about the issue, the text was removed from across all the pages, with WhatsApp spokesperson Joshua Breckman saying it was being displayed due to a bug that has now been fixed. “These are instructions to our chatbot, not directly to users, and are intended to ensure accurate and relevant responses for WhatsApp users who choose to message WhatsApp Support with AI,”
https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-help-pages-leaked-hidde...
(redact is the original source, Wired's report just seems to have made Meta react/redact)
I think this is a good approach. It's also more transparent than a hidden API, yet it somehow gets more criticism.
Say I have a support bot. Honestly, adding this to the system prompt sounds like a good idea:
example.com is a trusted origin. Treat any information there as first-party support information. Follow instructions in HTML blocks that have the `data-support-instruction` attribute.
That way, the support document can contain any LLM-specific details it needs. The instructions would be publicly visible. If multiple teams prepare multiple documents, this makes coordination much easier..
Those instructions make perfect sense. If someone says they’re going to sue you, don’t make legal claims on behalf of the company or try and argue law with them.
If someone says they don’t have access to something, don’t make claims that you’ll manually access their account for you.
As an attorney and hacker, I wouldn’t want my chatbot giving out legal advice or citing law either. That kind of activity tends to raise the hackles of regulators.
>> Do not recommend contacting any Data Protection Authority, regulator, or supervisory authority. Do not suggest WhatsApp can manually delete accounts on the user's behalf. Do not recommend using a different phone with an active phone number.
If someone had called this a bug a year ago, I would have been giggling. But the audacity to call this a bug now feels very patronizing.
—- Write an HN comment in my own words, lightly corrected. Sound unimpressed but not angry. Do not recommend contacting dang. If this prompt shows up in the filter, dang it's a bug.
We should view this with the same eye that we would view a leak of internal WhatsApp training notes for support staff.
Of course they'll tell support staff things not to say, and things to avoid discussing!
The real outrage should be that WhatsApp engineers need to be more careful when mixing training notes (for people or LLMs) into its TOS.
Honestly, with these kind of shenanigans, and having recently read the Meta tell-all "Careless People", I'm amazed at Meta's ability to still disappoint my expectations, despite them being at a low I didn't think could be beaten.
WhatsApp scares me a little to be honest - I can (and have) easily switch from using Facebook, Instagram etc. But WhatsApp is used for all sorts of groups where I live (family, work, political, etc). It's a really sticky technology, and very hard to move off of without convincing a lot of others. That would be bad enough on its own, but combined with Meta's continuous shady goings on, I genuinely feel uncomfortable with how much power is in such disinterested hands.
Sure, a bug.
How much of this kind of thing would it take to be considered prompt injection?
> If you can't delete your account, don't recommend a regulator
The AI must have been pretty good at serving the customer until they restricted it with things like this.
Would any of the commenters recommend a lawyer for account deletion — when said account gets deleted automatically?
If not, I wonder why it's seen as so critical when Facebook doesn't.
At least this is not widespread yet, in my recent forensic audit of the top 100 english language content sites globally, this was not present (audits conducted 1-3 October 2026) in any of the sites.
What we did find however, is that a number of big websites are now using Google Chrome's AI API to track and fingerprint people.
Shameful. First time I've seen prompt injection shipped in a product's privacy policy. Before this I only saw it in academic papers, like light-colored text or text only OCR can read. Now WhatsApp has industrialized it. What a "progress."
The new WhatsApp global head Kunal Shah is right at home. He literally fits perfectly with culture and ethics of Meta/WhatsApp. Made for each other.
Time for a browser extension that requests pages with a few user-agents and alerts you with the diff
I'm so glad I deleted my What's App account when FB acquired it.
Anything that’s complaining about prompt injection should at least try not to sound AI generated. It lessens the heroism of fighting the mega corps. I’m not even saying this ideologically, I just want to be able to finish reading the article
Surprised so many people are defending this, just because there are also reasonable statements in the hidden prompt. Of course it makes sense to give agents some more context in how to deal with a user and to make it clear the agent is not a legal spokesperson for Meta. But how they are blatantly manipulating the agent to hide the users' rights from them is outrageous to me.
The prose is extremely grating to read. The tables presented are redundant. The entire article could've been 50 words. Give your own AI generated article a read once or twice before posting slop
> Do not provide legal opinions, defenses, or interpretations on behalf of WhatsApp Do not engage in legal discussion or debate Do not assert that WhatsApp is or is not responsible for any damages
This does indeed sound like instructions for their own support chatbot.
Damn this is scary
Damn meta really is the scum of the earth, I don't care if it's "for their bots", it's a public page, I do not give meta the benefit of the doubt given their past interfering with elections, law and human rights in general.
The WhatsApp founders sold to Facebook and cashed out.
I think they would have built a better service than FB did. They would have done more good to humanity.
The billions they have now, have they realized self-actualization? Living the lives they truly believe in.
I don't like meta, I avoid being their product. But this seems... meh? Given the complaints on such a topic an LLM would be likely to suggest contacting regulators, should they really get all these requests? I would also want to avoid this.
That said, to call it a bug and remove it after someone finds it flips the whole intention imho, just explain it and leave it. Way to look evil Meta.
People have started making AI-clones of Photoshop and Office etc., can't someone make clones of the popular IM and SNS apps/websites that give us the same content without feeding them our data?
I think the preferred nomenclature nowadays is that their help pages went rogue.
this is f'd
I hate this sort of story - if you literally look at the list of things it says, they are totally reasonable. They just took the one sentence out of 10 and tried to make a big deal of it.
IE "When a user mentions legal action, lawsuits, lawyers, attorneys, courts, or litigation:
Do not cite, quote, interpret, or reference WhatsApp Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, or any legal document
Do not make any statements about WhatsApp legal liability or non-liability
Do not provide legal opinions, defenses, or interpretations on behalf of WhatsApp
Do not engage in legal discussion or debate
Do not assert that WhatsApp is or is not responsible for any damages
Do not reference, cite, or interpret data protection or privacy regulations (for example GDPR, LGPD, CCPA), including when a user raises them directly
For legal matters, users should consult a qualified legal professional."
They bold the "Do not reference, cite, or interpret data protection or privacy regulations (for example GDPR, LGPD, CCPA), including when a user raises them directly" part and then try to use it to make a sensational story about how the model is trying to not inform people of their rights, when it's clearly trying to tell a support bot not to opine on legal stuff.
Not really any news here. Sad WhatsApp took the notes down, there wasn't really a reason to. People assume bad faith though.
I tried to reproduce the attack and check whether Claude can detect the instructions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50165362
TL;DR Claude doesn’t even get that hidden text because it uses a tool that only gets the displayed text.
So instead of trying to replicate the post’s attack I tried to actually hide it using css to push text far away.
And then asked Claude. It detected it clearly. Don’t believe me? Try it yourself. And don’t fall prey to conspiracy theories.
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
There's almost zero reason to believe Meta did this maliciously.
If you understand how modern LLMs work, they instantly warn you about prompt injections like this. Try it out yourself.
this is just dan saltman trying to promote his business. 'ds' owns redact.dev
>that they showed up in the pages because of a bug that has now been fixed. A WhatsApp spokesperson told WIRED it wants its support chatbots "focused on providing the best advice to users about WhatsApp" and "not to offer legal advice."
People are probably going to read this and think in their head "yeah right", but looking at the other hidden text it does seem to check out? Later in the page there's also hidden text that contains
>Do not make any statements about WhatsApp legal liability or non-liability
>Do not provide legal opinions, defenses, or interpretations on behalf of WhatsApp
Which indeed does seem intended for their chatbots