19 ms·

Facebook to integrate the infrastructure for WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger

474 points by tysone 8y ago

octosphere 8y ago
I saw this a few days ago. If this means I can populate my empty Instagram profile (which was weirdly given to me by having a Facebook account) - then this is a win. I share a lot of images on Facebook, so if these went on my Instagram feed I would be really happy.
- fastball 8y ago
  You can already automate that fairly easily.
  - octosphere 8y ago
    You mean using something like IFTTT?[1] [1] https://ifttt.com https://ifttt.com
- laumars 8y ago
  You might be happy but I'd be furious. If I wanted content on Instagram then I'd have created an Instagram account and put it there.
godelmachine 8y ago
I wonder what platform will he use for this? Like what framework? If anyone has any idea, please share. Edit -> I don’t understand why the heck are honest technical questions downvoted!! It’s not like I would have found a ready answer for my question with a simple Google search. If a question does not interest you, at least please don’t downvote it! Some dumb people are courageous enough to ask questions.
- Tistel 8y ago
  Whats app is made with Erlang: http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/2/26/the-whatsapp-architecture-facebook-bought-for-19-billion.html http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/2/26/the-whatsapp-archi... the article (and others) have crazy stories about scale in WhatsApp (70 million messages a second (from a few years ago)). Erlang (and Elixir) are perfect for this scale and high reliability challenge. But, its corporate decision, so it might wind up being rewritten in some idiotic language. Or, more likely, it will be a hodgepodge of micro services written in different languages and glued together with HAProxie (or whatever).
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Electron
aboutruby 8y ago
I'm guessing this means unifying every Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp user account into one unified "Facebook" account (already happened for Instagram).
- gaius 8y ago
  I expect they (we) already are. I never formally linked my FB and IG accounts and don’t use FB itself anymore but IG always suggests me the people I left FB in part to get away from! It’s obvious that it has linked the accounts internally. And if course they have my WhatsApp number from 2FA on the other sites.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > already happened for Instagram This is the case for business accounts but not quite for normal users just yet. You can create an Instagram account with a username and password and it will repeatedly nag you to connect to Facebook for a while but eventually give up.
viach 8y ago
But, Instagram has messaging already, no? So it's only needed to drop WhatsApp and Messenger to get integration done. Ah, and move users accounts.
majewsky 8y ago
I wonder much how XMPP is left over in WhatsApp's guts at this point.
- basch 8y ago
  facebook chat and whatsapp were both written in erlang and used ejabberd. It's kind of funny that through rewrites they have become less standard and compatible, and now the goal is to bring them back together closer to where they were.
skohan 8y ago
I wonder how people will feel about this. I always thought that to some extent, people use different social networks to segment their interactions. I.e. will this make it feel like my mom is on Instagram now?
- aethertron 8y ago
  I segment my interactions in this way. I have different contacts on Facebook and WhatsApp. I don't use the Facebook mobile app partly because I don't want my contacts from Facebook to annoy me anywhere, expecting me to respond on my phone any time of the day. But I'm okay with ignoring people, asking people to stop, and mercilessly blocking people when they don't. Some are unwilling to take such deliberate action to reduce unwanted communications. Some perhaps have good reasons: it'll be socially costly.
- CamelCaseName 8y ago
  The comments here are rather bleak, but for me, this is fantastic. My family is all on WhatsApp, but my friends and colleagues are on Messenger and SMS. Previously, I would only ever use Messenger, checking SMS and WhatsApp once a month at best. A while ago, SMS got integrated to Messenger, I started staying in touch with people who only use SMS. Now that they're adding WhatsApp, I literally don't know a single person I can't reach from Messenger/Gmail. I love it, and I hope things go smoothly.
  - sfilargi 8y ago
    You love it that all your communication is controlled by only a single for profit company? I wonder how you will feel the day FB decided to ban you for whatever rule their algorithm would decide you violated.
cleansy 8y ago
I wonder what the EU commission will say to that. They only agreed to the WhatsApp takeover because FB stated that they would not do exactly what Zuck has in mind.
- fouronnes3 8y ago
  Interesting. Source?
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    "The Commission found that Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are not close competitors." http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1088_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1088_en.htm That release sums it up indirectly -- they had no issue with it because they were all distinct platforms with different features, but if Facebook consolidates them, I think that somewhat implies they are competitors and there is clear duplication of offerings.
- grahamel 8y ago
  FB have already been fined over that "When Facebook took over the WhatsApp messaging service in 2014, it told the [EU] commission it would not be able to match user accounts on both platforms, but went on to do exactly that." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/facebook-fined-eu-whatsapp-european-commission https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/facebook-fi...
  - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
    Doing this after they're already talking about forcing them to sell WhatsApp is a bold move.
    - mechazawa 8y ago
      You can't sell the platform if it's heavily integrated. Whoever buys it will just have to rewrite it from scratch then.
nopacience 8y ago
The time has come! delete whazzapp
xfour 8y ago
Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I can see the business salivating over this. Integrate tracking into WhatsApp, you can now more easily graph who people talk to and use that for their FB and IG accounts, and probably destroy the e2e encryption while they're at it. Therefore re-monitizing that section of their userbase.
- DCKing 8y ago
  It's easy to grab your pitchfork when seeing just a headline, but I'm quoting the article verbatim here: > Mr. Zuckerberg has also ordered all of the apps to incorporate end-to-end encryption, the people said, a significant step that protects messages from being viewed by anyone except the participants in the conversation.
  - xfour 8y ago
    And Zuckerberg and FB have been true to their word every step of the way. I see the backpedaling now, “Well you see congressman, I ordered it but when we dug in deeper, it would have a material impact on revenue, so we were forced due to our fiduciary duty to remove it.” And just happened to not tell anyone until it came out via whistleblower or some other means.
    - miracle2k 8y ago
      If there is someone who will push Facebook to abandon end to end encryption, it will just as soon be Congress, facing pressure form law-enforcement, with the implicit help of the NYTimes, who will no doubt be happy to feed the Anti-Facebook hysteria with classics such as "Facebook is allowing child pornography to be sent through it's newly unified infrastructure".
      - xfour 8y ago
        You’re right I didn’t stop to think of the children. And there you go, now we have the encryption broken and the National security letters as the reason they were forced to do so. It’s just as many of the comments above are saying you’re really just making this new shared infrastructure an enourmous target.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
I was under the (naive) assumption that Whatsapp prevents snooping for building a digital simulacrum of you - am I wrong in this? I see the article says that they are working on making the messaging product end-to-end encrypted, how do they know that they need to try and sell me socks because I mentioned socks once in a conversation to my grandmother?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bb101 8y ago
  I'm of the same assumption, but I think it only applies to our chats. The value is in the metadata - contact lists, contact photos, locations, connections. I doubt any of that has end-to-end encryption.
  - oarsinsync 8y ago
    It's all end to end encrypted, it's just the other end of the conversation when it comes to contact list sync (etc) is Facebook.
- DDub 8y ago
  E2E encryption allows for snooping if there are 3 ends.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    I guess you can't call it End2End2End or it starts sounding dirty.
- daat 8y ago
  Whatsapp has end to end encryption. But the metadata is not encrypted, and Facebook uses that data to track you. What is in the metadata? If I'm not mistaken it's the recipient, the time and probably the IP address of where you sent it. So if you start talking to someone new in Whatsapp, it shouldn't be a surprised when Facebook/Instagram will suggest you add them as friends/follow them based on that data. It doesn't know what you send to you're ex on a Friday at 2AM, and it doesn't know that you what you sent to your friend the next day, from her home WiFi.
zadler 8y ago
If they change whatsapp im moving to telegram end of story.
- dmix 8y ago
  Signal is the better choice
  - mmsimanga 8y ago
    About a week ago the Zimbabwean government blocked access to social media including WhatsApp. The recommendation doing the rounds was to use Telegram because governments cannot block it. I haven't done any research but I went from not having Telegram to at least 30 people in my list having Telegram. It appears to be the way people living under restrictive governments are starting to communicate. What are the issues with Telegram. A few links would suffice.
    - lighthazard 8y ago
      The general consensus is that they are 'insecure' with a custom crypto and custom protocol (MTProto).
      - przmk 8y ago
        On the other hand, the $300,000 bounty for cracking Telegram encryption has yet to be claimed.
        fxfan 8y ago
        But but everybody says "you cannot roll out your own crypto" so we should just stop trying anything new I think /s
  - lighthazard 8y ago
    While it's the more secure choice, it's definitely not 'better'. Telegram has a better messaging infrastructure, more reliable, multi-platform (doesn't need a phone), can create identities without a phone number, and (most important, IMO) the quality of life of using the app is far superior. Use Signal if you absolutely need end to end encryption, extremely secure chat, and no way to use it outside of your phone being on and connected to the Internet. Use Telegram if you want chat. Don't except high levels of security and for the average user who already uses Facebook Messenger and Instagram, it's good enough.
rhema 8y ago
On the list of end-to-end encryption platforms I would trust the least, Messenger might be number 1. If they can make this happen slowly, maybe it will work.
- majortennis 8y ago
  messenger listens to you 24/7 i experienced this first hand with ridiculously specific targeted ads.
fooblat 8y ago
> While all three services will continue operating as stand-alone apps, their underlying messaging infrastructure will be unified... The headline is missing a key word: infrastructure
- sgdpk 8y ago
  I agree. It seems to me that Facebook's Messenger and WhatsApp are fundamentally incompatible. With Messenger, you can open Facebook/messenger.com/your phone and see all your messages. With WhatsApp, you have no such option, as messages are not stored remotely. For the end-user, the most "seamless" way to integrate is to adopt Messenger's approach, which will be a security loss for WhatsApp unfortunately. As other users mentioned, there is also the possibility that the end-to-end encryption will lose its default status.
  - nindalf 8y ago
    > possibility that the end-to-end encryption will lose its default status The article says otherwise.
    - sgdpk 8y ago
      Oops, you're right. I hope it happens.
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  This has to be the biggest clickbait I have seen in a while. HN title should reflect this because that changes interpretation completely.
  - steeleduncan 8y ago
    It is a shame that HN does not have some system where you - mark a title as clickbait - either suggest an alternate title, or accept one from a list of previously submitted alternate titles When enough karma has gathered behind a title the system can automatically replace it.
stevehawk 8y ago
As a person that doesn't have Facebook or Instagram accounts and minimal desire to be a part of that product line, I see myself abandoning Whatsapp. Only used it because of myself and family/friends I'm the only Android user to begin with. Guess I'm going back to iPhones in the next iteration. ninja edit I was already debating going back to iPhone to begin with. I feel like this just cements it as my friends and I will give up Whatsapp for group iMessage
- technofiend 8y ago
  I deleted whatsapp after their purchase by facebook just to remain outside of the Zuckerverse. Signal allegedly offers a group chat feature, but getting 20 of your closest iphone-using friends to install signal rather than use iMessage seems unlikely.
wyldfire 8y ago
> Mr. Zuckerberg has also ordered all of the apps to incorporate end-to-end encryption, the people said, a significant step that protects messages from being viewed by anyone except the participants in the conversation. I don't blame NYT for getting this wrong wrt WhatsApp but it bears repeating: if you let someone else broker the key exchange, you trust them implicitly. That is to say that IMO this is not truly trustworthy "end to end encryption". To add insult to injury, WhatsApp permits rekeying to take place without any indication to the conversation's participants [in the default settings].
- yholio 8y ago
  This is fundamental. If Facebook messages are still to work as before, with a web interface, an archive etc. then you need to supply Facebook servers with a decryption key. You no longer have end to end encryption. And I don't really see how they could get rid of the web features, it represents a massive number of FB Messenger users. This ties nicely with the older pressures from Zuckerberg to monetize WhatsApp and the resistance of the founders for security reasons, this most likely means access to the conversation plaintext.
  - untog 8y ago
    WhatsApp Web already provides this, by connecting to the phone and proxying messages through it. Of course, that also requires implicit trust in WhatsApp Web, but it is possible. And using WhatsApp requires implicit trust in Facebook anyway, so...
    - est31 8y ago
      It still requires you to run the WhatsApp phone app though. I doubt that facebook wants to require all of their users to have phones. You can reimplement WhatsApp's functionality in client side JS but then you get into deep technical problems rooted from the fact that js is, in general, ephemeral and not something permanent compared to an ios/android app. E.g. when someone logs onto facebook on a their friend's computer to check their messages you want everything to be smooth including message search but in order to provide message search, either the server needs access to the plaintext or the client needs to download the entire message history... If there's an app the client already has the entire history so that's no problem, but it is a problem with ephemeral Javascript. Another problem you run into is that Facebook can serve specifically manipulated Javascript just for you ^ TM because you are an interesting target or something. For Android/iOS this would require an app update and need to go through a third party and I haven't heard that google or apple give you the option to push a specific app to a specific device.
_bxg1 8y ago
WhatsApp... like "what's up". I just got that.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  I always just kind of assumed the founder had a stroke while he was filling out the incorporation paperwork, but remembered it had something to do with "App"
- bb101 8y ago
  Wouldn't surprise me if its name was from Budweiser's What's Up ad back during the last dotcom boom. It was really popular at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhlZoq3niIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhlZoq3niIY
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pmlnr 8y ago
  and ICQ is "I seek you". Took years for my non-native English.
bad_user 8y ago
I like WhatsApp but it seems that Zuckerberg is determined to destroy it. At least I now have an incentive to move to Signal and convince my friends to do so, hopefully, or otherwise I’ll be alone. Well, I can always be reached by SMS or email.
- justaguyhere 8y ago
  I thought Whatsapp use is great in the U.S., but I realized how big it is outside the U.S. when I saw it firsthand. It is insane, there are people who use it to run their entire business/livelihood. I really hope it stays out of Zuck's "vision" but it likely won't, considering the amount of money he paid for it
  - calvinbhai 8y ago
    As an immigrant from India in the US, when FB bought WhatsApp, I still remember the sense of surprise/wonder among my american freinds/colleagues as to why Whatsapp was worth so much. The kind of traction Whatsapp has, even now in India, is something no bay area startup can even dream of achieving. Every family member, remotely related relatives, every single classmate of mine since childhood, everyone has whatsapp, and almost everyone uses it everyday. as someone who has no FB apps on phone other than whatsapp, I hope/wish this move means someone from messenger/insta can send message to Whatsapp account and vice versa. Nothing more than that. FB has done a good job in keeping Whatsapp true to it's core features (except the status/stories debacle). Once it's whatsapp payments / business messaging picks up, there's no looking back for FB even if it's core FB web platform goes to zero, Whatsapp + Messenger + Instagram will be a force to reckon with.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Switched to signal over a month ago and couldn't be happier. Only downside is slowness (might take up to 30 seconds) to sync conversations across devices if you haven't used a device in a while or you had a massive chat history with someone.
- wtmt 8y ago
  I'm repeating some of this from elsewhere on this page. I'd recommend trying out Wire first, since it's better than Signal (message delivery, speed, reliability, doesn't require a phone number to sign up, has usernames, etc.). A better user experience is easier to sell to others. Not everyone is interested in or cares about privacy or security, more so if it comes with penalties on the user experience (which Signal does).
simias 8y ago
I'm not sure I understand the motivation. Seems like they don't have much to gain and they do have a lot to lose. While (anecdotally) Facebook doesn't appear to be very hype with the youth today, Instagram and WhatsApp still appear to be quite popular. In a weird way Facebook is both the mainstream choice and the underdog, that's a good position to be in IMO. Beyond that what does it mean for people like me who use WhatsApp but do not have a Facebook account? Is the plan to force people like me to create a Facebook profile?
- flycaliguy 8y ago
  The article is pretty clear about your question. This is just going to provide cross platform messaging between all current and future apps.
  - simias 8y ago
    But how can they hope to do that without some form of unified account?
    - Irishsteve 8y ago
      I think they would link all your accounts by phone number. This may not appear directly in the front end app. Most likely though in the background they will use these links as ways to package your identity up when selling to advertisers. Thats what I'm guessing is the end goal , enrich their stagnant platform (FB) with their growth platforms (WhatsApp and Instagram)
    - rjmunro 8y ago
      They /could/ do it quite easily. I can email people who have different kinds of email account with no problem. The Jabber / XMPP protocol was designed to link messaging systems in this way. While it would be great if they moved to a pure Jabber federation model or similar, I very much doubt they will do that, however, unless someone like the EU can get their act together and force them to do it.
flycaliguy 8y ago
I have a feeling that they will live up to their encryption promise and this will actually provide them with a long term messaging service that can provide some stability for their company. The messages themselves are likely not valuable enough to creep into compared to the unified metadata that all this messaging can bring in.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  I think so. It's rather betting the value lies in the social graph, not in being able to tell that this user is a democrat voter with a disabled child and that is a republican who is black. [#] If facebook already holds that data on users and does not "give it up" then yes totally - they raise the bar so that absolutely no competitor can garner that data - a perfect moat. If somehow a regulator forces them to anonymise the data - they are at the same stage as any competitor. I guess that's the regulator challenge? [#] ie arbitrary meta data about users but that is extremely valuable to advertisers and political campaigns. do not take the examples as meaning anything :-)
- wtmt 8y ago
  I have just the opposite feeling. Facebook is going to remove end to end encryption as the default from WhatsApp and turn it into something like Messenger or Telegram, where chats are by default not end to end encrypted, and the user has to explicitly choose it. There'd be some backlash in the press. But most users won't bother about it, just like they don't bother about all the Facebook scandals to move off the platform or care enough to look for better privacy elsewhere. What's more, Facebook can, and will, paint this as something it's doing in order to monitor content and handle fake news, earning brownie points from various governments who'd be eager to tap into this new source for surveillance.
danijelb 8y ago
I wonder what this will mean for Whatsapp's privacy
stirbot 8y ago
Is there a paid secure messaging platform anyone can recommend? I don't want drag my friends and family to another platform only have it sell its users to the highest bidder.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  iMessage. Just buy an iPhone. Before anyone gets pissy, think about it, it's true.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    I've been seriously considering switching from Android to iOS and this is one of the reasons.
  - stirbot 8y ago
    There is no reason a chat app can't be multiplatform, plus the total cost to transition to iPhones would be in the thousands. Most of them would spring $3-5 a month for a platform secure though.
    - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
      Ok? That doesn't make my answer to the question wrong. FTR: I would love!!! an open source / open protocol messaging platform that wasn't owned by anyone. But, that doesn't seem to be in the cards for us all.
    - ll931110 8y ago
      Most? In Vietnam (where my parents live) with $5 a month you can do everything (Internet, call and text, or even watching Youtube for short period of time).
- throwawaylolx 8y ago
  Signal is the best candidate for what you're asking, but your friends would have to put up with some bad UX at least for the time being.
- 8y ago
rajeshmr 8y ago
> "a Facebook user could send an encrypted message to someone who has only a WhatsApp account, for example. Currently, that isn’t possible because the apps are separate." This freaks me out, as i have deliberately chosen to stay away from facebook since the early days! I somehow felt repelled by the idea of facebook back then, now its trying to hunt me down! Oops! I have been thinking of quitting Whatsapp since facebook acquired it, but continued using it since almost everyone i frequently communicate with does so on Whatsapp. Maybe it's time to quit whatsapp before this integration happens! Or am i just freaking out ? :D
- SilasX 8y ago
  I hate to sound pendantic but this part is wrong or very misleading too: >"a Facebook user could send an encrypted message to someone who has only a WhatsApp account, for example. Currently, that isn’t possible because the apps are separate." Nothing stops you from encrypting with your own scheme before sending the message to the other service, it’s just added inconvenience. More importantly it implies that you depend on the medium owner for the key management which (as others here are pointing out) defeats the point of encryption (in part) by allowing said medium to read the plaintexts. Edit: Am I wrong?
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  It's an improvement for me as I'm desperately trying to get away from Facebook but all of my friends and family insist on using Messenger (I don't use the site itself anymore). I know WhatsApp is owned by them but one less Facebook app on my phone (by deleting Messenger Lite) can only be a good thing. I could even delete my FB account if they are truly interoperable.
  - Max_Mustermann 8y ago
    You can try just using https://mbasic.facebook.com/messages/ https://mbasic.facebook.com/messages/ on your mobile browser. It's quite limited but it gets the job done. Let's hope they don't shut it down as well.
- rchaud 8y ago
krn 8y ago
It makes a lot of sense from the technical point of view. Essentially, one could share a single table of "users" between Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Because the accounts can be easily identified and connected by email addresses and phone numbers, which don't change that often. This way, a "Facebook Account" could become like a "Google Account", but for social media. This is exactly how Google integrated YouTube. It's bad for privacy, but good for everything else.
- ghego1 8y ago
  > It's bad for privacy, but good for everything else. I'd argue that then, as we are talking of platforms on which you share most of your personal and private digital life, it is nothing but bad.
  - krn 8y ago
    Facebook already has all the data it needs. What this change would do, is make an average person more aware of this. It would also help to increase the protection of the single "Facebook Account" to those, who will decide that they still want to have it. There were many questions such as "Did you quit Facebook in 2018?" in the media. Yet, the question should have really been "Did you quit Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp in 2018?". This update would make it much easier to do.
- octorian 8y ago
  It would actually make product development a lot harder. You have three end-user apps developed by different teams, supporting different content, wrapped in different structures. Managing the differences when sending messages from one to another is probably going to result in very weird and inconsistent user experiences, especially in the shorter term. Also, because of E2E encryption, the server infrastructure really cannot do the sort of content translation necessary to make things seamless.
  - krn 8y ago
    I think the front-ends would remain completely separate, and the back-ends would be namespaced by a platform. For instance: facebook.users, facebook.ads, facebook.feed, facebook.messenger, facebook.instagram, facebook.whatsapp. This way, users and ads would be shared across all Facebook's platforms, which is, I believe, the main reason for the entire integration.
ersiees 8y ago
This would actually make me delete my Facebook account finally, if I can message all people on Facebook through WhatsApp.
nindalf 8y ago
Some folks in this thread are convinced that end-to-end encryption is going away when the article says the exact opposite.
- handzbagz 8y ago
  Unless they radically change how Facebook messenger works I don't see how it could even be called end-to-end encryption. For it to work how it does now (online and independently through the app) they would have to hold the encryption keys. They would have to instead tie Facebook messenger to a phone like Whatsapp does and use a web app to send messages directly from the device instead. I don't see how else it could be done and still be called end-to-end encryption.
  - nindalf 8y ago
    > Unless they radically change And according to the article, this radical change is coming. Why is that so hard to believe?
    - throwawaylolx 8y ago
      Because there are no details beyond vague promises, and it entails serious restructuring and UX trade-offs that may affect revenue. At the moment, skepticism makes much more sense.
      - nindalf 8y ago
        Just to be clear, do you think that the NYT is mistaken, or that Facebook has committed to something that is too difficult to execute due to technical and revenue concerns?
        throwawaylolx 8y ago
        I don't think they committed to anything. It's just vague promises that can be reinterpreted in many ways, most of which can compromise trustworthy e2e encryption while also implementing some form of loophole-ridden e2e encryption. Yeah, WhatsApp is e2e encrypted by default, but it also automatically backs up all your chat history encrypted using a WhatsApp-owned private key. Sure, you can opt-out of backups, but will your peers do as well? Without a clear spec, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be very skeptical of what will be the final product of this operation.
progx 8y ago
"Currently, that isn’t possible because the apps are separate." It is impossible, because the don't want an open API, which other clients can use too.
- ambivalence 8y ago
  Open APIs led to some of the biggest anti-Facebook stories over the last two years. I'd also like to see external clients and so on, but I don't expect that, given how many problems that brings.
  - ge0rg 8y ago
    Facebook got into trouble for opening data about users to its business partners. I'm sure this is not the same kind of "open API" that you would use to access and control your account and your interactions with the Silo. However, this kind of API will empower you to use a client that allows you to spend less time on Facebook, the opposite of their strategy.
mikece 8y ago
Ironic timing: I just adopted Singal as a replacement for WhatsApp and have been telling all of my WhatsApp contacts I’m going to drop it in favor of Signal because I don’t trust FB not to fiddle with Whatsapp’s Infrastructure or pull games with the end-to-end encryption.
nunez 8y ago
> The move, described by four people involved in the effort, requires thousands of Facebook employees to reconfigure how WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger function at their most basic levels. While all three services will continue operating as stand-alone apps, their underlying messaging infrastructure will be unified, the people said. Facebook is still in the early stages of the work and plans to complete it by the end of this year or in early 2020, they said. Thank god. If they collapsed WhatsApp into Facebook Messenger, I would quit WhatsApp.
deca6cda37d0 8y ago
Apple should really make a android version of iMessage.
- jumpman500 8y ago
  If they did it for iMessage and Facetime they'd capture all chat traffic in America in a week. They'd risk losing the premium status of the iphone, but I think the real risk is they'd start a war with facebook and google. They'd be betting that google and facebook would keep their apps on the iphone if they invaded the android ecosystem. At least that's what I think. I'm not sure if Apple is ready to say all their applications are better then Google's yet.
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    But By common logic Apple’s only motivation is to sell more phones...
  - robjan 8y ago
    I think a lot of us are now sufficiently locked into our ecosystem. Most iOS users would never "downgrade" to Android but I bet many Androids would be willing to pay $10/year for iMessage
rblion 8y ago
I don't know if this will fix the underlying problem: people want something else.
perseusprime11 8y ago
This seems like a bad news for customers who care about their privacy. Zuckerberg unhinged!
tejaswiy 8y ago
Oh man ignoring the privacy implications of this, all the "product" people at Facebook are going to destroy WhatsApp as we know and love. It is going to become a giant monstrosity with a 500MB binary size, lag, whole bunch of tracking code and super slow servers. It has begun to a certain extent already and it's only going get worse. I assume they think that the network effect is going to lock users into WhatsApp but the moment it becomes too painful to run on a 100$ Android phone with 1GB of RAM, it will inevitably die. Sure it's not going to be instantaneous but I'm a 100% sure that all the PMs that run Facebook Messenger are itching to get their hands on WhatsApp. I understand these changes are only on the server side, but I imagine the client side is not too far away. Some client changes are inevitable because I'm pretty sure they'll build a "unified" API for all these apps and it's is going to contain a whole bunch of messenger service code (because look at all those messenger features that noone cares about, surely we can't just drop what a whole org has been working on for two years)
- Stubb 8y ago
  You don't trust Zuckerberg to keep your private messages private? Even if that somehow happens, he'll be selling your messaging network info to everyone with two nickels to rub together. No thanks. Delete Messenger/WhatsApp and move everything onto other services.
  - malloreon 8y ago
    you have to delete instagram too
    - prolepunk 8y ago
      Yes. Instagram is no longer unique photo sharing service. So far I've decided to change my habit, delete it from my phone and only use instagram on my desktop, at least facebook can't track my location information.
    - alekseypo 8y ago
      Already gone... it stopped being enjoyable years ago.
olivermarks 8y ago
Anyone know of a viable whatsapp alternative that lots of people could use? The problem with all these systems is you have to go where people are, rather than where you'd like to be. whatsapp is ubiquitous but this is looking even worse for snooping now and I'd like to have a credible alternative to suggest. I thought signal was it but most people aren't using it
milin 8y ago
So long instagram, nice knowing you.
strikelaserclaw 8y ago
I'd image they want to consolidate all their services and add a couple more like what wechat did. They will probably add the ability to send money.
CivilianZero 8y ago
I'm going to start this comment by saying that I don't agree with or approve of most of/anything Facebook has been doing. Security and Privacy are very important to me when it comes to the internet. I don't have a Facebook account. So now I'd like to point out that the article has a couple mistakes. You don't actually need to provide anything but a phone number to use Facebook Messenger, but not many people know this, it seems. Related to this is a lot of hand-wringing about "oh no this will mean Facebook is watching us in all these apps now". Well, I'll address this in a second. I want to talk about this quote in the article: "Matching Facebook and Instagram users to their WhatsApp handles could give pause to those who prefer keeping their use of each app compartmentalized." This is already impossible. WhatsApp and Instagram collect information on you whether you have a Facebook account and whether or not you are logged in if you do have one. They know who are you are (this is the reason why I don't really care how encrypted WhatsApp is, I'm not going to use it). So if this really bothers people, well, I've got some bad news.
msie 8y ago
Uh oh...lots of security bug bounty ahead!
vezycash 8y ago
Summary: Facebook wants to turn WhatsApp into Telegram.
pmlnr 8y ago
If only there was a federated protocol for messaging... oh, wait, there at least 2: XMPP and Matrix. I guess everything old is new again.
jradd 8y ago
whats 'messenger?'
- detaro 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Messenger
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
At least on the East Coast, there is a growing groundswell for breaking up Facebook. I don't think we'll see it break until after 2020. But if I'm seeing it, Zuckerberg is seeing it. I suspect one reason for integrating infrastructure is to make it more difficult to unwind these companies in the years to come.
billfruit 8y ago
While much of the commentary is negative here, I do think this will give us inter-operability among whatsapp, messenger, facebook and instagram. For those who have accounts on all these, it will be beneficial to be able to access them in an richer, integrated manner.
openloop 8y ago
Good. Facebook doesn’t need two messengers.
SkeptinenSpede5 8y ago
Facebook and fake acccounts. That's how we build world biggest sites...
humbleMouse 8y ago
the end is here. orwell 1984
ggm 8y ago
Oh, if only we had some activity to define open standards so we could do secure interpersonal message with any app using common standard protocols and cryptography. Oh wait. We do. That's what the IETF is for. We just let pricks like Zuckerberg run closed gardens because we suck at using choice to walk to things like signal. Go signal!
- bascule 8y ago
  Might want to check the names on this IETF draft... https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mls-protocol-02.html https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mls-protocol-02.html
  - ggm 8y ago
    One Facebook author and like apple iMessages which used xmpp they lock the anchor certificate to a walled garden. They're writing standards and deploying closed ecologies.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I'm not getting the sense from you that you're especially familiar with how this particular IETF effort came together.
      - ggm 8y ago
        True. Since i'm familiar with Richard Barnes I'll ask him in Prague. Your comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16325803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16325803 seem relevant.
        tptacek 8y ago
        I'm not optimistic about MLS, the standard. I also don't think it's a secret plot against open protocols.
        8y ago
delhanty 8y ago
>To add insult to injury, WhatsApp permits rekeying to take place without any indication to the conversation's participants [in the default settings]. Agreed. A nice Twitter thread [0] by Mustafa Al-Bassam back at the end of November on how that might be exploited by GCHQ: >Ian Levy of GCHQ has released an essay on how law enforcement should get access to end-to-end encrypted communications. Here is the critical bit to pay attention to. They're proposing to exploit the fact that users don't verify each other's public keys, and inject bad keys. Then this [1] later in the same thread by Twitter @inag_fc: >This is a coordinated attack by 5 eyes. They slipped it through AU parliament in the week, presumably as some horse trading because there was practically no debate nor warning, beyond the normal straw man proposals. [0] https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/1068179464197156864 https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/1068179464197156864 [1] https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/1071373264646225920 https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/1071373264646225920
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
objektif 8y ago
The question I have abiut this is that some news agencies claim that this will make it harder for regulators to break up FB. Hows it even a legitimate argument. Cant FB use the same technology replicated for each product in the worst case?
0xfffff 8y ago
Hopefully the EU sues them - this is unacceptable. Facebook should have never been allowed to buy out its core competition.
logifail 8y ago
Q: for those of us with friends/groups that still insist on using WhatsApp to co-ordinate stuff, what's the recommended way to use it while handing over as little data as possible?
spoid 8y ago
It is also worth mentioning that Whatsapp relentlessly buggers you to backup to Google Drive or iCloud respectively, where all messages and contents are stored in plain text (at least on Drive, not sure about iCloud). It's nice that they advertise end-to-end encrypting the messages in transit, but then just dump everything to the world's biggest data mining machine.

474 points by tysone 8y ago

I saw this a few days ago. If this means I can populate my empty Instagram profile (which was weirdly given to me by having a Facebook account) - then this is a win. I share a lot of images on Facebook, so if these went on my Instagram feed I would be really happy.

fastball 8y ago
You can already automate that fairly easily.
- octosphere 8y ago
  You mean using something like IFTTT?[1] [1] https://ifttt.com https://ifttt.com
laumars 8y ago
You might be happy but I'd be furious. If I wanted content on Instagram then I'd have created an Instagram account and put it there.

godelmachine 8y ago

I wonder what platform will he use for this? Like what framework? If anyone has any idea, please share. Edit -> I don’t understand why the heck are honest technical questions downvoted!! It’s not like I would have found a ready answer for my question with a simple Google search. If a question does not interest you, at least please don’t downvote it! Some dumb people are courageous enough to ask questions.

Tistel 8y ago
Whats app is made with Erlang: http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/2/26/the-whatsapp-architecture-facebook-bought-for-19-billion.html http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/2/26/the-whatsapp-archi... the article (and others) have crazy stories about scale in WhatsApp (70 million messages a second (from a few years ago)). Erlang (and Elixir) are perfect for this scale and high reliability challenge. But, its corporate decision, so it might wind up being rewritten in some idiotic language. Or, more likely, it will be a hodgepodge of micro services written in different languages and glued together with HAProxie (or whatever).
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Electron

aboutruby 8y ago

I'm guessing this means unifying every Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp user account into one unified "Facebook" account (already happened for Instagram).

gaius 8y ago
I expect they (we) already are. I never formally linked my FB and IG accounts and don’t use FB itself anymore but IG always suggests me the people I left FB in part to get away from! It’s obvious that it has linked the accounts internally. And if course they have my WhatsApp number from 2FA on the other sites.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> already happened for Instagram This is the case for business accounts but not quite for normal users just yet. You can create an Instagram account with a username and password and it will repeatedly nag you to connect to Facebook for a while but eventually give up.

viach 8y ago

But, Instagram has messaging already, no? So it's only needed to drop WhatsApp and Messenger to get integration done. Ah, and move users accounts.

majewsky 8y ago

I wonder much how XMPP is left over in WhatsApp's guts at this point.

basch 8y ago
facebook chat and whatsapp were both written in erlang and used ejabberd. It's kind of funny that through rewrites they have become less standard and compatible, and now the goal is to bring them back together closer to where they were.

skohan 8y ago

I wonder how people will feel about this. I always thought that to some extent, people use different social networks to segment their interactions. I.e. will this make it feel like my mom is on Instagram now?

aethertron 8y ago
I segment my interactions in this way. I have different contacts on Facebook and WhatsApp. I don't use the Facebook mobile app partly because I don't want my contacts from Facebook to annoy me anywhere, expecting me to respond on my phone any time of the day. But I'm okay with ignoring people, asking people to stop, and mercilessly blocking people when they don't. Some are unwilling to take such deliberate action to reduce unwanted communications. Some perhaps have good reasons: it'll be socially costly.
CamelCaseName 8y ago
The comments here are rather bleak, but for me, this is fantastic. My family is all on WhatsApp, but my friends and colleagues are on Messenger and SMS. Previously, I would only ever use Messenger, checking SMS and WhatsApp once a month at best. A while ago, SMS got integrated to Messenger, I started staying in touch with people who only use SMS. Now that they're adding WhatsApp, I literally don't know a single person I can't reach from Messenger/Gmail. I love it, and I hope things go smoothly.
- sfilargi 8y ago
  You love it that all your communication is controlled by only a single for profit company? I wonder how you will feel the day FB decided to ban you for whatever rule their algorithm would decide you violated.

cleansy 8y ago

I wonder what the EU commission will say to that. They only agreed to the WhatsApp takeover because FB stated that they would not do exactly what Zuck has in mind.

fouronnes3 8y ago
Interesting. Source?
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  "The Commission found that Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are not close competitors." http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1088_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1088_en.htm That release sums it up indirectly -- they had no issue with it because they were all distinct platforms with different features, but if Facebook consolidates them, I think that somewhat implies they are competitors and there is clear duplication of offerings.
grahamel 8y ago
FB have already been fined over that "When Facebook took over the WhatsApp messaging service in 2014, it told the [EU] commission it would not be able to match user accounts on both platforms, but went on to do exactly that." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/facebook-fined-eu-whatsapp-european-commission https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/facebook-fi...
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago
  Doing this after they're already talking about forcing them to sell WhatsApp is a bold move.
  - mechazawa 8y ago
    You can't sell the platform if it's heavily integrated. Whoever buys it will just have to rewrite it from scratch then.

nopacience 8y ago

The time has come! delete whazzapp

xfour 8y ago

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I can see the business salivating over this. Integrate tracking into WhatsApp, you can now more easily graph who people talk to and use that for their FB and IG accounts, and probably destroy the e2e encryption while they're at it. Therefore re-monitizing that section of their userbase.

DCKing 8y ago
It's easy to grab your pitchfork when seeing just a headline, but I'm quoting the article verbatim here: > Mr. Zuckerberg has also ordered all of the apps to incorporate end-to-end encryption, the people said, a significant step that protects messages from being viewed by anyone except the participants in the conversation.
- xfour 8y ago
  And Zuckerberg and FB have been true to their word every step of the way. I see the backpedaling now, “Well you see congressman, I ordered it but when we dug in deeper, it would have a material impact on revenue, so we were forced due to our fiduciary duty to remove it.” And just happened to not tell anyone until it came out via whistleblower or some other means.
  - miracle2k 8y ago
    If there is someone who will push Facebook to abandon end to end encryption, it will just as soon be Congress, facing pressure form law-enforcement, with the implicit help of the NYTimes, who will no doubt be happy to feed the Anti-Facebook hysteria with classics such as "Facebook is allowing child pornography to be sent through it's newly unified infrastructure".
    - xfour 8y ago
      You’re right I didn’t stop to think of the children. And there you go, now we have the encryption broken and the National security letters as the reason they were forced to do so. It’s just as many of the comments above are saying you’re really just making this new shared infrastructure an enourmous target.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

I was under the (naive) assumption that Whatsapp prevents snooping for building a digital simulacrum of you - am I wrong in this? I see the article says that they are working on making the messaging product end-to-end encrypted, how do they know that they need to try and sell me socks because I mentioned socks once in a conversation to my grandmother?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bb101 8y ago
I'm of the same assumption, but I think it only applies to our chats. The value is in the metadata - contact lists, contact photos, locations, connections. I doubt any of that has end-to-end encryption.
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  It's all end to end encrypted, it's just the other end of the conversation when it comes to contact list sync (etc) is Facebook.
DDub 8y ago
E2E encryption allows for snooping if there are 3 ends.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  I guess you can't call it End2End2End or it starts sounding dirty.
daat 8y ago
Whatsapp has end to end encryption. But the metadata is not encrypted, and Facebook uses that data to track you. What is in the metadata? If I'm not mistaken it's the recipient, the time and probably the IP address of where you sent it. So if you start talking to someone new in Whatsapp, it shouldn't be a surprised when Facebook/Instagram will suggest you add them as friends/follow them based on that data. It doesn't know what you send to you're ex on a Friday at 2AM, and it doesn't know that you what you sent to your friend the next day, from her home WiFi.

zadler 8y ago

If they change whatsapp im moving to telegram end of story.

dmix 8y ago
Signal is the better choice
- mmsimanga 8y ago
  About a week ago the Zimbabwean government blocked access to social media including WhatsApp. The recommendation doing the rounds was to use Telegram because governments cannot block it. I haven't done any research but I went from not having Telegram to at least 30 people in my list having Telegram. It appears to be the way people living under restrictive governments are starting to communicate. What are the issues with Telegram. A few links would suffice.
  - lighthazard 8y ago
    The general consensus is that they are 'insecure' with a custom crypto and custom protocol (MTProto).
    - przmk 8y ago
      On the other hand, the $300,000 bounty for cracking Telegram encryption has yet to be claimed.
      - fxfan 8y ago
        But but everybody says "you cannot roll out your own crypto" so we should just stop trying anything new I think /s
- lighthazard 8y ago
  While it's the more secure choice, it's definitely not 'better'. Telegram has a better messaging infrastructure, more reliable, multi-platform (doesn't need a phone), can create identities without a phone number, and (most important, IMO) the quality of life of using the app is far superior. Use Signal if you absolutely need end to end encryption, extremely secure chat, and no way to use it outside of your phone being on and connected to the Internet. Use Telegram if you want chat. Don't except high levels of security and for the average user who already uses Facebook Messenger and Instagram, it's good enough.

rhema 8y ago

On the list of end-to-end encryption platforms I would trust the least, Messenger might be number 1. If they can make this happen slowly, maybe it will work.

majortennis 8y ago
messenger listens to you 24/7 i experienced this first hand with ridiculously specific targeted ads.

fooblat 8y ago

> While all three services will continue operating as stand-alone apps, their underlying messaging infrastructure will be unified... The headline is missing a key word: infrastructure

sgdpk 8y ago
I agree. It seems to me that Facebook's Messenger and WhatsApp are fundamentally incompatible. With Messenger, you can open Facebook/messenger.com/your phone and see all your messages. With WhatsApp, you have no such option, as messages are not stored remotely. For the end-user, the most "seamless" way to integrate is to adopt Messenger's approach, which will be a security loss for WhatsApp unfortunately. As other users mentioned, there is also the possibility that the end-to-end encryption will lose its default status.
- nindalf 8y ago
  > possibility that the end-to-end encryption will lose its default status The article says otherwise.
  - sgdpk 8y ago
    Oops, you're right. I hope it happens.
stingraycharles 8y ago
This has to be the biggest clickbait I have seen in a while. HN title should reflect this because that changes interpretation completely.
- steeleduncan 8y ago
  It is a shame that HN does not have some system where you - mark a title as clickbait - either suggest an alternate title, or accept one from a list of previously submitted alternate titles When enough karma has gathered behind a title the system can automatically replace it.

stevehawk 8y ago

As a person that doesn't have Facebook or Instagram accounts and minimal desire to be a part of that product line, I see myself abandoning Whatsapp. Only used it because of myself and family/friends I'm the only Android user to begin with. Guess I'm going back to iPhones in the next iteration. ninja edit I was already debating going back to iPhone to begin with. I feel like this just cements it as my friends and I will give up Whatsapp for group iMessage

technofiend 8y ago
I deleted whatsapp after their purchase by facebook just to remain outside of the Zuckerverse. Signal allegedly offers a group chat feature, but getting 20 of your closest iphone-using friends to install signal rather than use iMessage seems unlikely.

wyldfire 8y ago

> Mr. Zuckerberg has also ordered all of the apps to incorporate end-to-end encryption, the people said, a significant step that protects messages from being viewed by anyone except the participants in the conversation. I don't blame NYT for getting this wrong wrt WhatsApp but it bears repeating: if you let someone else broker the key exchange, you trust them implicitly. That is to say that IMO this is not truly trustworthy "end to end encryption". To add insult to injury, WhatsApp permits rekeying to take place without any indication to the conversation's participants [in the default settings].

yholio 8y ago
This is fundamental. If Facebook messages are still to work as before, with a web interface, an archive etc. then you need to supply Facebook servers with a decryption key. You no longer have end to end encryption. And I don't really see how they could get rid of the web features, it represents a massive number of FB Messenger users. This ties nicely with the older pressures from Zuckerberg to monetize WhatsApp and the resistance of the founders for security reasons, this most likely means access to the conversation plaintext.
- untog 8y ago
  WhatsApp Web already provides this, by connecting to the phone and proxying messages through it. Of course, that also requires implicit trust in WhatsApp Web, but it is possible. And using WhatsApp requires implicit trust in Facebook anyway, so...
  - est31 8y ago
    It still requires you to run the WhatsApp phone app though. I doubt that facebook wants to require all of their users to have phones. You can reimplement WhatsApp's functionality in client side JS but then you get into deep technical problems rooted from the fact that js is, in general, ephemeral and not something permanent compared to an ios/android app. E.g. when someone logs onto facebook on a their friend's computer to check their messages you want everything to be smooth including message search but in order to provide message search, either the server needs access to the plaintext or the client needs to download the entire message history... If there's an app the client already has the entire history so that's no problem, but it is a problem with ephemeral Javascript. Another problem you run into is that Facebook can serve specifically manipulated Javascript just for you ^ TM because you are an interesting target or something. For Android/iOS this would require an app update and need to go through a third party and I haven't heard that google or apple give you the option to push a specific app to a specific device.

_bxg1 8y ago

WhatsApp... like "what's up". I just got that.

_bxg1 8y ago
I always just kind of assumed the founder had a stroke while he was filling out the incorporation paperwork, but remembered it had something to do with "App"
bb101 8y ago
Wouldn't surprise me if its name was from Budweiser's What's Up ad back during the last dotcom boom. It was really popular at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhlZoq3niIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhlZoq3niIY
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pmlnr 8y ago
and ICQ is "I seek you". Took years for my non-native English.

bad_user 8y ago

I like WhatsApp but it seems that Zuckerberg is determined to destroy it. At least I now have an incentive to move to Signal and convince my friends to do so, hopefully, or otherwise I’ll be alone. Well, I can always be reached by SMS or email.

justaguyhere 8y ago
I thought Whatsapp use is great in the U.S., but I realized how big it is outside the U.S. when I saw it firsthand. It is insane, there are people who use it to run their entire business/livelihood. I really hope it stays out of Zuck's "vision" but it likely won't, considering the amount of money he paid for it
- calvinbhai 8y ago
  As an immigrant from India in the US, when FB bought WhatsApp, I still remember the sense of surprise/wonder among my american freinds/colleagues as to why Whatsapp was worth so much. The kind of traction Whatsapp has, even now in India, is something no bay area startup can even dream of achieving. Every family member, remotely related relatives, every single classmate of mine since childhood, everyone has whatsapp, and almost everyone uses it everyday. as someone who has no FB apps on phone other than whatsapp, I hope/wish this move means someone from messenger/insta can send message to Whatsapp account and vice versa. Nothing more than that. FB has done a good job in keeping Whatsapp true to it's core features (except the status/stories debacle). Once it's whatsapp payments / business messaging picks up, there's no looking back for FB even if it's core FB web platform goes to zero, Whatsapp + Messenger + Instagram will be a force to reckon with.
spamizbad 8y ago
Switched to signal over a month ago and couldn't be happier. Only downside is slowness (might take up to 30 seconds) to sync conversations across devices if you haven't used a device in a while or you had a massive chat history with someone.
wtmt 8y ago
I'm repeating some of this from elsewhere on this page. I'd recommend trying out Wire first, since it's better than Signal (message delivery, speed, reliability, doesn't require a phone number to sign up, has usernames, etc.). A better user experience is easier to sell to others. Not everyone is interested in or cares about privacy or security, more so if it comes with penalties on the user experience (which Signal does).

simias 8y ago

I'm not sure I understand the motivation. Seems like they don't have much to gain and they do have a lot to lose. While (anecdotally) Facebook doesn't appear to be very hype with the youth today, Instagram and WhatsApp still appear to be quite popular. In a weird way Facebook is both the mainstream choice and the underdog, that's a good position to be in IMO. Beyond that what does it mean for people like me who use WhatsApp but do not have a Facebook account? Is the plan to force people like me to create a Facebook profile?

flycaliguy 8y ago
The article is pretty clear about your question. This is just going to provide cross platform messaging between all current and future apps.
- simias 8y ago
  But how can they hope to do that without some form of unified account?
  - Irishsteve 8y ago
    I think they would link all your accounts by phone number. This may not appear directly in the front end app. Most likely though in the background they will use these links as ways to package your identity up when selling to advertisers. Thats what I'm guessing is the end goal , enrich their stagnant platform (FB) with their growth platforms (WhatsApp and Instagram)
  - rjmunro 8y ago
    They /could/ do it quite easily. I can email people who have different kinds of email account with no problem. The Jabber / XMPP protocol was designed to link messaging systems in this way. While it would be great if they moved to a pure Jabber federation model or similar, I very much doubt they will do that, however, unless someone like the EU can get their act together and force them to do it.

flycaliguy 8y ago

I have a feeling that they will live up to their encryption promise and this will actually provide them with a long term messaging service that can provide some stability for their company. The messages themselves are likely not valuable enough to creep into compared to the unified metadata that all this messaging can bring in.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
I think so. It's rather betting the value lies in the social graph, not in being able to tell that this user is a democrat voter with a disabled child and that is a republican who is black. [#] If facebook already holds that data on users and does not "give it up" then yes totally - they raise the bar so that absolutely no competitor can garner that data - a perfect moat. If somehow a regulator forces them to anonymise the data - they are at the same stage as any competitor. I guess that's the regulator challenge? [#] ie arbitrary meta data about users but that is extremely valuable to advertisers and political campaigns. do not take the examples as meaning anything :-)
wtmt 8y ago
I have just the opposite feeling. Facebook is going to remove end to end encryption as the default from WhatsApp and turn it into something like Messenger or Telegram, where chats are by default not end to end encrypted, and the user has to explicitly choose it. There'd be some backlash in the press. But most users won't bother about it, just like they don't bother about all the Facebook scandals to move off the platform or care enough to look for better privacy elsewhere. What's more, Facebook can, and will, paint this as something it's doing in order to monitor content and handle fake news, earning brownie points from various governments who'd be eager to tap into this new source for surveillance.

danijelb 8y ago

I wonder what this will mean for Whatsapp's privacy

stirbot 8y ago

Is there a paid secure messaging platform anyone can recommend? I don't want drag my friends and family to another platform only have it sell its users to the highest bidder.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
iMessage. Just buy an iPhone. Before anyone gets pissy, think about it, it's true.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  I've been seriously considering switching from Android to iOS and this is one of the reasons.
- stirbot 8y ago
  There is no reason a chat app can't be multiplatform, plus the total cost to transition to iPhones would be in the thousands. Most of them would spring $3-5 a month for a platform secure though.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    Ok? That doesn't make my answer to the question wrong. FTR: I would love!!! an open source / open protocol messaging platform that wasn't owned by anyone. But, that doesn't seem to be in the cards for us all.
  - ll931110 8y ago
    Most? In Vietnam (where my parents live) with $5 a month you can do everything (Internet, call and text, or even watching Youtube for short period of time).
throwawaylolx 8y ago
Signal is the best candidate for what you're asking, but your friends would have to put up with some bad UX at least for the time being.
8y ago

rajeshmr 8y ago

> "a Facebook user could send an encrypted message to someone who has only a WhatsApp account, for example. Currently, that isn’t possible because the apps are separate." This freaks me out, as i have deliberately chosen to stay away from facebook since the early days! I somehow felt repelled by the idea of facebook back then, now its trying to hunt me down! Oops! I have been thinking of quitting Whatsapp since facebook acquired it, but continued using it since almost everyone i frequently communicate with does so on Whatsapp. Maybe it's time to quit whatsapp before this integration happens! Or am i just freaking out ? :D

SilasX 8y ago
I hate to sound pendantic but this part is wrong or very misleading too: >"a Facebook user could send an encrypted message to someone who has only a WhatsApp account, for example. Currently, that isn’t possible because the apps are separate." Nothing stops you from encrypting with your own scheme before sending the message to the other service, it’s just added inconvenience. More importantly it implies that you depend on the medium owner for the key management which (as others here are pointing out) defeats the point of encryption (in part) by allowing said medium to read the plaintexts. Edit: Am I wrong?
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
It's an improvement for me as I'm desperately trying to get away from Facebook but all of my friends and family insist on using Messenger (I don't use the site itself anymore). I know WhatsApp is owned by them but one less Facebook app on my phone (by deleting Messenger Lite) can only be a good thing. I could even delete my FB account if they are truly interoperable.
- Max_Mustermann 8y ago
  You can try just using https://mbasic.facebook.com/messages/ https://mbasic.facebook.com/messages/ on your mobile browser. It's quite limited but it gets the job done. Let's hope they don't shut it down as well.
rchaud 8y ago

krn 8y ago

It makes a lot of sense from the technical point of view. Essentially, one could share a single table of "users" between Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Because the accounts can be easily identified and connected by email addresses and phone numbers, which don't change that often. This way, a "Facebook Account" could become like a "Google Account", but for social media. This is exactly how Google integrated YouTube. It's bad for privacy, but good for everything else.

ghego1 8y ago
> It's bad for privacy, but good for everything else. I'd argue that then, as we are talking of platforms on which you share most of your personal and private digital life, it is nothing but bad.
- krn 8y ago
  Facebook already has all the data it needs. What this change would do, is make an average person more aware of this. It would also help to increase the protection of the single "Facebook Account" to those, who will decide that they still want to have it. There were many questions such as "Did you quit Facebook in 2018?" in the media. Yet, the question should have really been "Did you quit Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp in 2018?". This update would make it much easier to do.
octorian 8y ago
It would actually make product development a lot harder. You have three end-user apps developed by different teams, supporting different content, wrapped in different structures. Managing the differences when sending messages from one to another is probably going to result in very weird and inconsistent user experiences, especially in the shorter term. Also, because of E2E encryption, the server infrastructure really cannot do the sort of content translation necessary to make things seamless.
- krn 8y ago
  I think the front-ends would remain completely separate, and the back-ends would be namespaced by a platform. For instance: facebook.users, facebook.ads, facebook.feed, facebook.messenger, facebook.instagram, facebook.whatsapp. This way, users and ads would be shared across all Facebook's platforms, which is, I believe, the main reason for the entire integration.

ersiees 8y ago

This would actually make me delete my Facebook account finally, if I can message all people on Facebook through WhatsApp.

nindalf 8y ago

Some folks in this thread are convinced that end-to-end encryption is going away when the article says the exact opposite.

handzbagz 8y ago
Unless they radically change how Facebook messenger works I don't see how it could even be called end-to-end encryption. For it to work how it does now (online and independently through the app) they would have to hold the encryption keys. They would have to instead tie Facebook messenger to a phone like Whatsapp does and use a web app to send messages directly from the device instead. I don't see how else it could be done and still be called end-to-end encryption.
- nindalf 8y ago
  > Unless they radically change And according to the article, this radical change is coming. Why is that so hard to believe?
  - throwawaylolx 8y ago
    Because there are no details beyond vague promises, and it entails serious restructuring and UX trade-offs that may affect revenue. At the moment, skepticism makes much more sense.
    - nindalf 8y ago
      Just to be clear, do you think that the NYT is mistaken, or that Facebook has committed to something that is too difficult to execute due to technical and revenue concerns?
      - throwawaylolx 8y ago
        I don't think they committed to anything. It's just vague promises that can be reinterpreted in many ways, most of which can compromise trustworthy e2e encryption while also implementing some form of loophole-ridden e2e encryption. Yeah, WhatsApp is e2e encrypted by default, but it also automatically backs up all your chat history encrypted using a WhatsApp-owned private key. Sure, you can opt-out of backups, but will your peers do as well? Without a clear spec, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be very skeptical of what will be the final product of this operation.

progx 8y ago

"Currently, that isn’t possible because the apps are separate." It is impossible, because the don't want an open API, which other clients can use too.

ambivalence 8y ago
Open APIs led to some of the biggest anti-Facebook stories over the last two years. I'd also like to see external clients and so on, but I don't expect that, given how many problems that brings.
- ge0rg 8y ago
  Facebook got into trouble for opening data about users to its business partners. I'm sure this is not the same kind of "open API" that you would use to access and control your account and your interactions with the Silo. However, this kind of API will empower you to use a client that allows you to spend less time on Facebook, the opposite of their strategy.

mikece 8y ago

Ironic timing: I just adopted Singal as a replacement for WhatsApp and have been telling all of my WhatsApp contacts I’m going to drop it in favor of Signal because I don’t trust FB not to fiddle with Whatsapp’s Infrastructure or pull games with the end-to-end encryption.

nunez 8y ago

> The move, described by four people involved in the effort, requires thousands of Facebook employees to reconfigure how WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger function at their most basic levels. While all three services will continue operating as stand-alone apps, their underlying messaging infrastructure will be unified, the people said. Facebook is still in the early stages of the work and plans to complete it by the end of this year or in early 2020, they said. Thank god. If they collapsed WhatsApp into Facebook Messenger, I would quit WhatsApp.

deca6cda37d0 8y ago

Apple should really make a android version of iMessage.

jumpman500 8y ago
If they did it for iMessage and Facetime they'd capture all chat traffic in America in a week. They'd risk losing the premium status of the iphone, but I think the real risk is they'd start a war with facebook and google. They'd be betting that google and facebook would keep their apps on the iphone if they invaded the android ecosystem. At least that's what I think. I'm not sure if Apple is ready to say all their applications are better then Google's yet.
- rock_hard 8y ago
  But By common logic Apple’s only motivation is to sell more phones...
- robjan 8y ago
  I think a lot of us are now sufficiently locked into our ecosystem. Most iOS users would never "downgrade" to Android but I bet many Androids would be willing to pay $10/year for iMessage

rblion 8y ago

I don't know if this will fix the underlying problem: people want something else.

perseusprime11 8y ago

This seems like a bad news for customers who care about their privacy. Zuckerberg unhinged!

tejaswiy 8y ago

Oh man ignoring the privacy implications of this, all the "product" people at Facebook are going to destroy WhatsApp as we know and love. It is going to become a giant monstrosity with a 500MB binary size, lag, whole bunch of tracking code and super slow servers. It has begun to a certain extent already and it's only going get worse. I assume they think that the network effect is going to lock users into WhatsApp but the moment it becomes too painful to run on a 100$ Android phone with 1GB of RAM, it will inevitably die. Sure it's not going to be instantaneous but I'm a 100% sure that all the PMs that run Facebook Messenger are itching to get their hands on WhatsApp. I understand these changes are only on the server side, but I imagine the client side is not too far away. Some client changes are inevitable because I'm pretty sure they'll build a "unified" API for all these apps and it's is going to contain a whole bunch of messenger service code (because look at all those messenger features that noone cares about, surely we can't just drop what a whole org has been working on for two years)

Stubb 8y ago
You don't trust Zuckerberg to keep your private messages private? Even if that somehow happens, he'll be selling your messaging network info to everyone with two nickels to rub together. No thanks. Delete Messenger/WhatsApp and move everything onto other services.
- malloreon 8y ago
  you have to delete instagram too
  - prolepunk 8y ago
    Yes. Instagram is no longer unique photo sharing service. So far I've decided to change my habit, delete it from my phone and only use instagram on my desktop, at least facebook can't track my location information.
  - alekseypo 8y ago
    Already gone... it stopped being enjoyable years ago.

olivermarks 8y ago

Anyone know of a viable whatsapp alternative that lots of people could use? The problem with all these systems is you have to go where people are, rather than where you'd like to be. whatsapp is ubiquitous but this is looking even worse for snooping now and I'd like to have a credible alternative to suggest. I thought signal was it but most people aren't using it

milin 8y ago

So long instagram, nice knowing you.

strikelaserclaw 8y ago

I'd image they want to consolidate all their services and add a couple more like what wechat did. They will probably add the ability to send money.

CivilianZero 8y ago

I'm going to start this comment by saying that I don't agree with or approve of most of/anything Facebook has been doing. Security and Privacy are very important to me when it comes to the internet. I don't have a Facebook account. So now I'd like to point out that the article has a couple mistakes. You don't actually need to provide anything but a phone number to use Facebook Messenger, but not many people know this, it seems. Related to this is a lot of hand-wringing about "oh no this will mean Facebook is watching us in all these apps now". Well, I'll address this in a second. I want to talk about this quote in the article: "Matching Facebook and Instagram users to their WhatsApp handles could give pause to those who prefer keeping their use of each app compartmentalized." This is already impossible. WhatsApp and Instagram collect information on you whether you have a Facebook account and whether or not you are logged in if you do have one. They know who are you are (this is the reason why I don't really care how encrypted WhatsApp is, I'm not going to use it). So if this really bothers people, well, I've got some bad news.

msie 8y ago

Uh oh...lots of security bug bounty ahead!

vezycash 8y ago

Summary: Facebook wants to turn WhatsApp into Telegram.

pmlnr 8y ago

If only there was a federated protocol for messaging... oh, wait, there at least 2: XMPP and Matrix. I guess everything old is new again.

jradd 8y ago

whats 'messenger?'

detaro 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Messenger

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

At least on the East Coast, there is a growing groundswell for breaking up Facebook. I don't think we'll see it break until after 2020. But if I'm seeing it, Zuckerberg is seeing it. I suspect one reason for integrating infrastructure is to make it more difficult to unwind these companies in the years to come.

billfruit 8y ago

While much of the commentary is negative here, I do think this will give us inter-operability among whatsapp, messenger, facebook and instagram. For those who have accounts on all these, it will be beneficial to be able to access them in an richer, integrated manner.

openloop 8y ago

Good. Facebook doesn’t need two messengers.

SkeptinenSpede5 8y ago

Facebook and fake acccounts. That's how we build world biggest sites...

humbleMouse 8y ago

the end is here. orwell 1984

ggm 8y ago

Oh, if only we had some activity to define open standards so we could do secure interpersonal message with any app using common standard protocols and cryptography. Oh wait. We do. That's what the IETF is for. We just let pricks like Zuckerberg run closed gardens because we suck at using choice to walk to things like signal. Go signal!

bascule 8y ago
Might want to check the names on this IETF draft... https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mls-protocol-02.html https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mls-protocol-02.html
- ggm 8y ago
  One Facebook author and like apple iMessages which used xmpp they lock the anchor certificate to a walled garden. They're writing standards and deploying closed ecologies.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I'm not getting the sense from you that you're especially familiar with how this particular IETF effort came together.
    - ggm 8y ago
      True. Since i'm familiar with Richard Barnes I'll ask him in Prague. Your comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16325803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16325803 seem relevant.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I'm not optimistic about MLS, the standard. I also don't think it's a secret plot against open protocols.
        8y ago

delhanty 8y ago

>To add insult to injury, WhatsApp permits rekeying to take place without any indication to the conversation's participants [in the default settings]. Agreed. A nice Twitter thread [0] by Mustafa Al-Bassam back at the end of November on how that might be exploited by GCHQ: >Ian Levy of GCHQ has released an essay on how law enforcement should get access to end-to-end encrypted communications. Here is the critical bit to pay attention to. They're proposing to exploit the fact that users don't verify each other's public keys, and inject bad keys. Then this [1] later in the same thread by Twitter @inag_fc: >This is a coordinated attack by 5 eyes. They slipped it through AU parliament in the week, presumably as some horse trading because there was practically no debate nor warning, beyond the normal straw man proposals. [0] https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/1068179464197156864 https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/1068179464197156864 [1] https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/1071373264646225920 https://twitter.com/iang_fc/status/1071373264646225920

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

objektif 8y ago

The question I have abiut this is that some news agencies claim that this will make it harder for regulators to break up FB. Hows it even a legitimate argument. Cant FB use the same technology replicated for each product in the worst case?

0xfffff 8y ago

Hopefully the EU sues them - this is unacceptable. Facebook should have never been allowed to buy out its core competition.

logifail 8y ago

Q: for those of us with friends/groups that still insist on using WhatsApp to co-ordinate stuff, what's the recommended way to use it while handing over as little data as possible?

spoid 8y ago

It is also worth mentioning that Whatsapp relentlessly buggers you to backup to Google Drive or iCloud respectively, where all messages and contents are stored in plain text (at least on Drive, not sure about iCloud). It's nice that they advertise end-to-end encrypting the messages in transit, but then just dump everything to the world's biggest data mining machine.