8 ms·

The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people

by devit 8y ago

The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider network effect platforms like social network as monopolies on ways of interacting with their users, and restrict them from several behaviors like this one.

Freak_NL 8y ago
It sucks. Here in the Netherlands, WhatsApp is used by the vast majority of people. The holdouts (like me) consist of people who don't want to deal with smartphones (some elderly, some who deliberately avoid them because of addictive behaviour), or who own a smartphone, but don't agree with WhatsApp's terms of use (essentially paying for access with your data). Not using WhatsApp has consequences. We sometimes miss out on family events when people forget that we don't use WhatsApp. Anyone with children is basically required to use WhatsApp for communication with other parents, organising school and social events, and what have you. Refusal to do so means you ostracise your kids. So yeah, great. To participate in some parts of society WhatsApp is now a de facto requirement. A whole nation blindly agrees to whatever terms of use Facebook drafts. And when you do accept those terms, you are forced to use their client software on one of their approved operating systems. Owning a (Android or Iphone) smartphone is a hard requirement. The network effect means that alternatives never gain any traction, and the price of WhatsApp ('free') is hard to beat.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  > To participate in some parts of society WhatsApp is now a de facto requirement. A whole nation blindly agrees to whatever terms of use Facebook drafts. Same if you don't have a Facebook account. Speaking of which, WhatsApp was the defacto IM standard before it was bought by Facebook. Previously it was MSN Messenger (or whatever it is called these days. Skype?) and that was horrible as well. XMMP was at least federated, and had backwards compatibility. The advantage WhatsApp has over MSN is that the data is E2EE. There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards. Though if I look at the Mastodon drama (recently posted on HN, apparently from 2017) federated in practice can lead to fractured communities. Heck, you can even see that in the history of IRC (how EFnet and IRCnet got started).
  - ReverseCold 8y ago
    > There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards. No, it might as well have no end-end cryptography. The crypto is only enabled for "Secret Chats" and Calls, and I have never seen anyone actually use the secret chat functionality. Using a secret chat limits you to one device and blocks features like bots, so most people don't want to use it.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      >> There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards. > No, it might as well have no end-end cryptography. Parent says cryptography, not end-to-end cryptography. Cryptography provides value even if it is not end-to-end (it limits the attack surface). There's a lot to say about Telegram, but can please stick to the facts?
  - arkadiytehgraet 8y ago
    Have you actually seen the implementation of the WhatsApp clients on iOS / Android? How can you say that the data is E2EE when there are no sources, no verifiable builds, nothing but just statements that "yes, we do use E2EE"? On the contrary, you have open protocol with verifiable implementation and available sources of the Telegram client for mobile platforms; yet you automatically disregard it just because it is not developed by Moxie or whatever. I am still baffled how people completely turn off their critical thinking when it comes to encryption; I guess this is a fine example how marketing actually works well.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      Yes, WhatsApp is proprietary software and you did describe some issues. However, the context of the discussion is finding a WhatsApp alternative and rolling it out; Telegram is not a viable alternative. The point never was we should stick to WhatsApp. If the standards Telegram opted not to use are broken we can all be easily hacked. So avoiding those standards just for the sake of using your own, is snake oil. Thinking you know better than the consensus of the whole security community is, in this case, unnecessarily arrogant and harmful. [EDIT]I'll edit my post since I can't reply: WhatsApp has E2EE, but you cannot verify the source. Telegram uses home brew crypto. Stop distracting the reader from that, you scum. As for the issues with Telegram it isn't "one" security researcher. I found 2 in 30 seconds: Matthew Green and Micah Lee [1] [2] [1] https://medium.com/@thegrugq/operational-telegram-cbbaadb9013a https://medium.com/@thegrugq/operational-telegram-cbbaadb901... [2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_messa.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_mes... [/EDIT]
- balladeer 8y ago
  Sometimes the consequences are are quite difficult to deal with. These days I am looking to rent a flat in India. It's a tough task for a bachelor here - add to that the fact that builders rarely build 1 bedroom flats. So any broker I call simply tells me "WhatsApp me your requirement, budget, and details". When (sometimes) say "I'll SMS" the prompt response is "no no, WhatsApp". Most of them/us here don't check SMS - it's reserved for either spam or bank txn notifications and OTPs.
- furyg3 8y ago
  To be fair, my Signal list of contacts keeps growing here in NL. I do some light proselytizing, but it seems to be moving along on it's own. Hopefully Arjan Lubach (Holland's Jon Oliver) will do a hit-peice on WhatsApp like he did on Facebook at some point in the future. I'd like to delete WhatsApp, but any conversation I have in Signal vs WhatsApp is a small victory that I'll take. If at some point more than 50% of my messages are outside WA, I'll nuke it.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    Signal seems to be growing here in Toronto as well. I'm virtually ostracized by my lack of social media engagement so my list is short, but I encouraged my girlfriend to pick it up after the more public Facebook fiascos as she was a heavy Messenger user. As soon as she installed it, she found a good selection of her contact list was already on there, including her company's owner. Her major concern was keeping in touch with friends and family in Montana, California, and BC. She's still stuck between the two apps because of coworkers, employees, and other holdouts, though.
  - Freak_NL 8y ago
    Signal inherits some of WhatsApp's limitations though. It requires that the primary device be an Android or IOS based smartphone with an internet connection; and your identifier is your telephone number, which has the same privacy implications as WhatsApp. With the centralised server model choosing Signal over WhatsApp is basically betting that Open Whisper Systems won't monetize your data, or won't be bought out by some bigger fish. Why can't I use a messaging service from my desktop without having a smartphone with pre-approved operating system nearby?
    - brewrwe 8y ago
      Signal-CLI and Signald both allow one to register a number on a desktop for use with Signal, you can even pull your messages right into weechat if you want: https://github.com/thefinn93/signal-weechat https://github.com/thefinn93/signal-weechat
- midasz 8y ago
  I just made the choice to do it. I let my contacts know I'd no longer be available on WhatsApp - but they can reach me through calling, email, text/signal. I'm definitely missing out on some interactions but at the end of the day, who cares? If it's really that important I'll get the message another way. I know it's the reality now that most parents/schools use WhatsApp but that's not a reason to not want change. Crucial information should be sent via email anyways. I also think this is the only way to actually move off the platform. You can't half-ass it, because why would others move away when you're still available?
- paulie_a 8y ago
  If family members don't invite you to events because of the lack of whatsapp, you probably are not very close.
  - jsmthrowaway 8y ago
    At least buy OP a drink before psychoanalyzing their relationships that aggressively without any evidence to go on beside your cultural assumptions. Mere participation in this community is a beaming, reliable signal that you’re probably not Dr. Phil, so I’d suggest listening rather than explaining familial bond to someone you’ve never met. If you said something like that to me in person, your evening would not go the way you think it would, and you’d find yourself in a conversation about your departure from the circumstances that allowed you to offer that perceived wisdom.
  - allannienhuis 8y ago
    Some people rely on their tech to take care of a lot of details, and simply forget the edge cases sometimes. People are human and make mistakes. It's pretty disrespectful to jump to conclusions about their relationships.
- pkulak 8y ago
  Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. You can buy an iPhone and accidentally use iMessage, but that's about the only option.
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    > Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. In what possible way does "everyone is de facto forced to use the only permitted client of a proprietary platform and agree to whatever terrible terms Facebook, a surveillance platform, dictates" sound better than "everyone still uses an open standard not solely controlled by a private surveillance company, to which any number of different clients can interconnect peacefully"?
    - jsmthrowaway 8y ago
      None of the adjectives nor concepts you have applied to SMS apply, including the assertion that any number of clients can interconnect peacefully, that it is open, that it is a standard, that the steering of the technology is not actually done by the private surveillance companies you’ve mysteriously overlooked, not to mention how SMS is easier for law enforcement to acquire than a pack of cigarettes, because the carrier is sitting there waiting for a warrant on account of not angering the government that, you know, gave them spectrum and allowed them to exist in the first place. Aside from all of that, good analysis. Aware iPhone owners literally have the “oh, they’re green, looks like I have yet another plaintext compromise in my life and they’ll never figure out Signal” conversation with themselves every time they exchange numbers with someone new, and I’ve met more than one person who has remarked negatively to the person’s face that they are using SMS, including in a dating scenario as a dealbreaker. You might be the only person who likes it, aside from misguided parts of the Android community that praise SMS roughly like you do when discussing the lack of something like iMessage in that ecosystem, all without realizing the surveillance calculus you’ve correctly established is the real reason the carriers tie Google’s hands (even beyond Google going through messaging systems like socks).
      - brewrwe 8y ago
qeternity 8y ago
> Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider network effect platforms like social network as monopolies on ways of interacting with their users, and restrict them from several behaviors like this one. This is not a monopoly, and monopolies themselves are not illegal. You mention antitrust laws but I am not sure what anticompetitive behavior is taking place here? The C&D itself is quite laughable, but speaking more generally, why should the network effect be regulated? Plenty of other communications networks are open, so any network effect of "walled gardens" ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product. There are so many methods of communication available today, calling any one of them a monopoly is a bit absurd. You may not like what WhatsApp are doing, but that's not reason for more regulation...that's reason to switch products. But just because you don't like the alternatives isn't a valid argument for increased regulation.
- iMerNibor 8y ago
  > superiority of the product It's not though. Once you become big and have reached critical mass you can pull off quite a lot of mediocre/bad stuff. Fact is the majority of people simply do not care as long as the product still works (they might not even be aware there's bad stuff going on behind the scenes) - too much effort to find a suitable alternative, convince everyone else to go to the same platform and so on
  - qeternity 8y ago
    How do you think it got big in the first place? "Too much effort to find an alternative" is just a synonym for "superior".
    - yorwba 8y ago
      They start out by building a superior product; then that product gets big; then they realize they need to monetize; then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay; then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative... WhatsApp is currently in the "no longer superior" phase.
mtgx 8y ago
Anti-trust laws need to stop obviously dominant players from buying up competitors. Facebook should have never been allowed to buy WhatsApp and Instagram - especially Instagram. It would've been so much better if Instagram got to be the main independent competitor (or even purchased by another company) to Facebook, than Facebook owning it. Facebook will keep making tens of billions of dollars in the coming years, even if it's engagement drops - but Instagram may keep growing. So does that mean Facebook will be able to purchase future competitors to Instagram, too? Screw that. It shouldn't be allowed. In fact, I think we need a law that says automatic anti-trust protection is activated on any company purchases over say $500 million. Google should have never been allowed to purchase Admob, either. They almost rejected the deal at the time, but still ended-up letting it through. And of course all of these telecom mergers shouldn't be allowed either.
- realusername 8y ago
  It's crazy to think that if Snapchat accepted their offer, all the major social networks would be own by Facebook.
- sievebrain 8y ago
  That might just mean those companies are never created at all. A huge number of sv "companies" have no business plan beyond acquisition.
oliwarner 8y ago
Saying ~"We need more laws!" isn't enough. What do you specifically want here? We could demand that all network protocols are fair game for reverse-engineering to enable interoperability. Or mandate public specs and save everybody a bit of effort. But if it's my app —not the protocol or the service itself— that's generating revenue to pay for the whole thing (eg adverts), why is it fair to let people and other providers usurp that? What if I rely on a specific client setup for security (eg anti-cheat in multiplayer games)? I do very much see your point about social colonies forming and creating their own localised monopolies, but I just cannot see a clean way to fix it. Do you?
- bkor 8y ago
  > why is it fair to let people and other providers usurp that? If you have a monopoly then there are various restrictions on what you can do. Whatsapp is pretty much the way to communicate within The Netherlands. Other companies which have a monopoly and/or huge market share (e.g. 2 companies which each have 40% of the market). This e.g. resulted in KPN (ADSL/VDSL) being forced to open up their infrastructure. I don't see how Whatsapp is earning money via their app, nor how that's relevant in case of a monopoly.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    Telecoms monopolies are usually required to provide fair access to competitors. BT in the UK provides a number of services to resellers and limited site access to exchanges to and cabinets. But that open access only has to be fair by law, not free. BT gets showered in cash, both to maintain the infrastructure and also provide physical access. KPN will too. Running Whatsapp isn't free. Their servers hold messages, handle authentication, developers need salaries. Third parties should have to contribute to this too. WhatsApp should get to charge for access to their infrastructure, Just like BT/KPN/etc. But now you're in a situation where competitors either pony up and swallow the cost themselves —as WhatsApp does— or we also force WhatsApp to not undercut its wholesale price, to make it less tempting. Price restrictions are common in attempts to overturn physical monopolies. Open access is a lofty goal but it also cements that protocol, those phone lines, that water pipe as the provider for that type service. It can also arrest the development of the base infrastructure, as well as putting people off developing their own alternatives. Or... We get a bit more revolutionary about things like this. If somebody makes something that becomes fundamental to society, society buys it outright. [Inter]nationalise services (and drugs, and patents, etc). In this case, buy WhatsApp, federate the service (allow people to run their own nodes) and fix the addressing so it's like email. I'm sure somebody can make cases for and against that.
amelius 8y ago
> The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. There's the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Quoting from Wikipedia: > Since communications services exhibit network effects and positive externalities, new entrants would face barriers to entry if they could not interconnect their networks with those of the incumbent carriers. Thus, another key provision of the 1996 Act sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks with one another, imposing additional requirements on the incumbents because they might desire to restrict competitive entry by denying such interconnection or by setting terms, conditions, and rates that could undermine the ability of the new entrants to compete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
- jolmg 8y ago
  Sounds like it goes in the right direction. So why isn't this being applied to whatsapp? Are they not considered a carrier? Wording it a bit weird, though. "interconnect their networks with one another"? If whatsapp made their client authenticate with their services so that their servers only work with their client and vice versa, would waiting for requests from would-be competitors to give them special access be sufficient to comply? I wish a law would force the use of an open protocol for all services. Let anyone make their client, and let those clients connect to any server.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    Those regulations applied to "telecommunications services" like DSL, not "information services" like WhatsApp. Also, the FCC basically stopped applying them even to basic infrastructure more than a decade ago.
craftyguy 8y ago
> The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. So, switch to something else and convince a few other folks to do the same (e.g. "I am not available on <whatever>, use <whatever++> if you want to talk to me"). Y'all were not always on whatsapp to begin with, so there's no reason y'all cannot leave.

by devit 8y ago

Freak_NL 8y ago

It sucks. Here in the Netherlands, WhatsApp is used by the vast majority of people. The holdouts (like me) consist of people who don't want to deal with smartphones (some elderly, some who deliberately avoid them because of addictive behaviour), or who own a smartphone, but don't agree with WhatsApp's terms of use (essentially paying for access with your data). Not using WhatsApp has consequences. We sometimes miss out on family events when people forget that we don't use WhatsApp. Anyone with children is basically required to use WhatsApp for communication with other parents, organising school and social events, and what have you. Refusal to do so means you ostracise your kids. So yeah, great. To participate in some parts of society WhatsApp is now a de facto requirement. A whole nation blindly agrees to whatever terms of use Facebook drafts. And when you do accept those terms, you are forced to use their client software on one of their approved operating systems. Owning a (Android or Iphone) smartphone is a hard requirement. The network effect means that alternatives never gain any traction, and the price of WhatsApp ('free') is hard to beat.

Fnoord 8y ago
> To participate in some parts of society WhatsApp is now a de facto requirement. A whole nation blindly agrees to whatever terms of use Facebook drafts. Same if you don't have a Facebook account. Speaking of which, WhatsApp was the defacto IM standard before it was bought by Facebook. Previously it was MSN Messenger (or whatever it is called these days. Skype?) and that was horrible as well. XMMP was at least federated, and had backwards compatibility. The advantage WhatsApp has over MSN is that the data is E2EE. There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards. Though if I look at the Mastodon drama (recently posted on HN, apparently from 2017) federated in practice can lead to fractured communities. Heck, you can even see that in the history of IRC (how EFnet and IRCnet got started).
- ReverseCold 8y ago
  > There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards. No, it might as well have no end-end cryptography. The crypto is only enabled for "Secret Chats" and Calls, and I have never seen anyone actually use the secret chat functionality. Using a secret chat limits you to one device and blocks features like bots, so most people don't want to use it.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    >> There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards. > No, it might as well have no end-end cryptography. Parent says cryptography, not end-to-end cryptography. Cryptography provides value even if it is not end-to-end (it limits the attack surface). There's a lot to say about Telegram, but can please stick to the facts?
- arkadiytehgraet 8y ago
  Have you actually seen the implementation of the WhatsApp clients on iOS / Android? How can you say that the data is E2EE when there are no sources, no verifiable builds, nothing but just statements that "yes, we do use E2EE"? On the contrary, you have open protocol with verifiable implementation and available sources of the Telegram client for mobile platforms; yet you automatically disregard it just because it is not developed by Moxie or whatever. I am still baffled how people completely turn off their critical thinking when it comes to encryption; I guess this is a fine example how marketing actually works well.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Yes, WhatsApp is proprietary software and you did describe some issues. However, the context of the discussion is finding a WhatsApp alternative and rolling it out; Telegram is not a viable alternative. The point never was we should stick to WhatsApp. If the standards Telegram opted not to use are broken we can all be easily hacked. So avoiding those standards just for the sake of using your own, is snake oil. Thinking you know better than the consensus of the whole security community is, in this case, unnecessarily arrogant and harmful. [EDIT]I'll edit my post since I can't reply: WhatsApp has E2EE, but you cannot verify the source. Telegram uses home brew crypto. Stop distracting the reader from that, you scum. As for the issues with Telegram it isn't "one" security researcher. I found 2 in 30 seconds: Matthew Green and Micah Lee [1] [2] [1] https://medium.com/@thegrugq/operational-telegram-cbbaadb9013a https://medium.com/@thegrugq/operational-telegram-cbbaadb901... [2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_messa.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/06/comparing_mes... [/EDIT]
balladeer 8y ago
Sometimes the consequences are are quite difficult to deal with. These days I am looking to rent a flat in India. It's a tough task for a bachelor here - add to that the fact that builders rarely build 1 bedroom flats. So any broker I call simply tells me "WhatsApp me your requirement, budget, and details". When (sometimes) say "I'll SMS" the prompt response is "no no, WhatsApp". Most of them/us here don't check SMS - it's reserved for either spam or bank txn notifications and OTPs.
furyg3 8y ago
To be fair, my Signal list of contacts keeps growing here in NL. I do some light proselytizing, but it seems to be moving along on it's own. Hopefully Arjan Lubach (Holland's Jon Oliver) will do a hit-peice on WhatsApp like he did on Facebook at some point in the future. I'd like to delete WhatsApp, but any conversation I have in Signal vs WhatsApp is a small victory that I'll take. If at some point more than 50% of my messages are outside WA, I'll nuke it.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Signal seems to be growing here in Toronto as well. I'm virtually ostracized by my lack of social media engagement so my list is short, but I encouraged my girlfriend to pick it up after the more public Facebook fiascos as she was a heavy Messenger user. As soon as she installed it, she found a good selection of her contact list was already on there, including her company's owner. Her major concern was keeping in touch with friends and family in Montana, California, and BC. She's still stuck between the two apps because of coworkers, employees, and other holdouts, though.
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  Signal inherits some of WhatsApp's limitations though. It requires that the primary device be an Android or IOS based smartphone with an internet connection; and your identifier is your telephone number, which has the same privacy implications as WhatsApp. With the centralised server model choosing Signal over WhatsApp is basically betting that Open Whisper Systems won't monetize your data, or won't be bought out by some bigger fish. Why can't I use a messaging service from my desktop without having a smartphone with pre-approved operating system nearby?
  - brewrwe 8y ago
    Signal-CLI and Signald both allow one to register a number on a desktop for use with Signal, you can even pull your messages right into weechat if you want: https://github.com/thefinn93/signal-weechat https://github.com/thefinn93/signal-weechat
midasz 8y ago
I just made the choice to do it. I let my contacts know I'd no longer be available on WhatsApp - but they can reach me through calling, email, text/signal. I'm definitely missing out on some interactions but at the end of the day, who cares? If it's really that important I'll get the message another way. I know it's the reality now that most parents/schools use WhatsApp but that's not a reason to not want change. Crucial information should be sent via email anyways. I also think this is the only way to actually move off the platform. You can't half-ass it, because why would others move away when you're still available?
paulie_a 8y ago
If family members don't invite you to events because of the lack of whatsapp, you probably are not very close.
- jsmthrowaway 8y ago
  At least buy OP a drink before psychoanalyzing their relationships that aggressively without any evidence to go on beside your cultural assumptions. Mere participation in this community is a beaming, reliable signal that you’re probably not Dr. Phil, so I’d suggest listening rather than explaining familial bond to someone you’ve never met. If you said something like that to me in person, your evening would not go the way you think it would, and you’d find yourself in a conversation about your departure from the circumstances that allowed you to offer that perceived wisdom.
- allannienhuis 8y ago
  Some people rely on their tech to take care of a lot of details, and simply forget the edge cases sometimes. People are human and make mistakes. It's pretty disrespectful to jump to conclusions about their relationships.
pkulak 8y ago
Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. You can buy an iPhone and accidentally use iMessage, but that's about the only option.
- msbarnett 8y ago
  > Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. In what possible way does "everyone is de facto forced to use the only permitted client of a proprietary platform and agree to whatever terrible terms Facebook, a surveillance platform, dictates" sound better than "everyone still uses an open standard not solely controlled by a private surveillance company, to which any number of different clients can interconnect peacefully"?
  - jsmthrowaway 8y ago
    None of the adjectives nor concepts you have applied to SMS apply, including the assertion that any number of clients can interconnect peacefully, that it is open, that it is a standard, that the steering of the technology is not actually done by the private surveillance companies you’ve mysteriously overlooked, not to mention how SMS is easier for law enforcement to acquire than a pack of cigarettes, because the carrier is sitting there waiting for a warrant on account of not angering the government that, you know, gave them spectrum and allowed them to exist in the first place. Aside from all of that, good analysis. Aware iPhone owners literally have the “oh, they’re green, looks like I have yet another plaintext compromise in my life and they’ll never figure out Signal” conversation with themselves every time they exchange numbers with someone new, and I’ve met more than one person who has remarked negatively to the person’s face that they are using SMS, including in a dating scenario as a dealbreaker. You might be the only person who likes it, aside from misguided parts of the Android community that praise SMS roughly like you do when discussing the lack of something like iMessage in that ecosystem, all without realizing the surveillance calculus you’ve correctly established is the real reason the carriers tie Google’s hands (even beyond Google going through messaging systems like socks).
    - brewrwe 8y ago

qeternity 8y ago

> Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider network effect platforms like social network as monopolies on ways of interacting with their users, and restrict them from several behaviors like this one. This is not a monopoly, and monopolies themselves are not illegal. You mention antitrust laws but I am not sure what anticompetitive behavior is taking place here? The C&D itself is quite laughable, but speaking more generally, why should the network effect be regulated? Plenty of other communications networks are open, so any network effect of "walled gardens" ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product. There are so many methods of communication available today, calling any one of them a monopoly is a bit absurd. You may not like what WhatsApp are doing, but that's not reason for more regulation...that's reason to switch products. But just because you don't like the alternatives isn't a valid argument for increased regulation.

iMerNibor 8y ago
> superiority of the product It's not though. Once you become big and have reached critical mass you can pull off quite a lot of mediocre/bad stuff. Fact is the majority of people simply do not care as long as the product still works (they might not even be aware there's bad stuff going on behind the scenes) - too much effort to find a suitable alternative, convince everyone else to go to the same platform and so on
- qeternity 8y ago
  How do you think it got big in the first place? "Too much effort to find an alternative" is just a synonym for "superior".
  - yorwba 8y ago
    They start out by building a superior product; then that product gets big; then they realize they need to monetize; then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay; then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative... WhatsApp is currently in the "no longer superior" phase.

mtgx 8y ago

Anti-trust laws need to stop obviously dominant players from buying up competitors. Facebook should have never been allowed to buy WhatsApp and Instagram - especially Instagram. It would've been so much better if Instagram got to be the main independent competitor (or even purchased by another company) to Facebook, than Facebook owning it. Facebook will keep making tens of billions of dollars in the coming years, even if it's engagement drops - but Instagram may keep growing. So does that mean Facebook will be able to purchase future competitors to Instagram, too? Screw that. It shouldn't be allowed. In fact, I think we need a law that says automatic anti-trust protection is activated on any company purchases over say $500 million. Google should have never been allowed to purchase Admob, either. They almost rejected the deal at the time, but still ended-up letting it through. And of course all of these telecom mergers shouldn't be allowed either.

realusername 8y ago
It's crazy to think that if Snapchat accepted their offer, all the major social networks would be own by Facebook.
sievebrain 8y ago
That might just mean those companies are never created at all. A huge number of sv "companies" have no business plan beyond acquisition.

oliwarner 8y ago

Saying ~"We need more laws!" isn't enough. What do you specifically want here? We could demand that all network protocols are fair game for reverse-engineering to enable interoperability. Or mandate public specs and save everybody a bit of effort. But if it's my app —not the protocol or the service itself— that's generating revenue to pay for the whole thing (eg adverts), why is it fair to let people and other providers usurp that? What if I rely on a specific client setup for security (eg anti-cheat in multiplayer games)? I do very much see your point about social colonies forming and creating their own localised monopolies, but I just cannot see a clean way to fix it. Do you?

bkor 8y ago
> why is it fair to let people and other providers usurp that? If you have a monopoly then there are various restrictions on what you can do. Whatsapp is pretty much the way to communicate within The Netherlands. Other companies which have a monopoly and/or huge market share (e.g. 2 companies which each have 40% of the market). This e.g. resulted in KPN (ADSL/VDSL) being forced to open up their infrastructure. I don't see how Whatsapp is earning money via their app, nor how that's relevant in case of a monopoly.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Telecoms monopolies are usually required to provide fair access to competitors. BT in the UK provides a number of services to resellers and limited site access to exchanges to and cabinets. But that open access only has to be fair by law, not free. BT gets showered in cash, both to maintain the infrastructure and also provide physical access. KPN will too. Running Whatsapp isn't free. Their servers hold messages, handle authentication, developers need salaries. Third parties should have to contribute to this too. WhatsApp should get to charge for access to their infrastructure, Just like BT/KPN/etc. But now you're in a situation where competitors either pony up and swallow the cost themselves —as WhatsApp does— or we also force WhatsApp to not undercut its wholesale price, to make it less tempting. Price restrictions are common in attempts to overturn physical monopolies. Open access is a lofty goal but it also cements that protocol, those phone lines, that water pipe as the provider for that type service. It can also arrest the development of the base infrastructure, as well as putting people off developing their own alternatives. Or... We get a bit more revolutionary about things like this. If somebody makes something that becomes fundamental to society, society buys it outright. [Inter]nationalise services (and drugs, and patents, etc). In this case, buy WhatsApp, federate the service (allow people to run their own nodes) and fix the addressing so it's like email. I'm sure somebody can make cases for and against that.

amelius 8y ago

> The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. There's the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Quoting from Wikipedia: > Since communications services exhibit network effects and positive externalities, new entrants would face barriers to entry if they could not interconnect their networks with those of the incumbent carriers. Thus, another key provision of the 1996 Act sets obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to interconnect their networks with one another, imposing additional requirements on the incumbents because they might desire to restrict competitive entry by denying such interconnection or by setting terms, conditions, and rates that could undermine the ability of the new entrants to compete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

jolmg 8y ago
Sounds like it goes in the right direction. So why isn't this being applied to whatsapp? Are they not considered a carrier? Wording it a bit weird, though. "interconnect their networks with one another"? If whatsapp made their client authenticate with their services so that their servers only work with their client and vice versa, would waiting for requests from would-be competitors to give them special access be sufficient to comply? I wish a law would force the use of an open protocol for all services. Let anyone make their client, and let those clients connect to any server.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Those regulations applied to "telecommunications services" like DSL, not "information services" like WhatsApp. Also, the FCC basically stopped applying them even to basic infrastructure more than a decade ago.

craftyguy 8y ago

> The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. So, switch to something else and convince a few other folks to do the same (e.g. "I am not available on <whatever>, use <whatever++> if you want to talk to me"). Y'all were not always on whatsapp to begin with, so there's no reason y'all cannot leave.