14 ms·

It's harder for US folks to understand just how much of a monopoly WhatsApp has in Europe and the UK. Pretty much all of our school and local community communi

It's harder for US folks to understand just how much of a monopoly WhatsApp has in Europe and the UK. Pretty much all of our school and local community communication happens via WhatsApp. I'd change to Signal or Telegram in a heartbeat, but the inertia is so great it's not possible. It pains me to say, but we're getting to the point where companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google need to be treated like utilities or something so that such moves as these can be scrutinised and controlled more effectively as Facebook could pretty much (within current law) introduce whatever policy they like and users would be faced with the option of accepting or being cut off from their local community. Given the pandemic and the UK lockdown, this is not tolerable.

ravingraven 6y ago
>Twitter, Facebook and Google need to be treated like utilities [...] Our generation is reinventing the wheel here, our ancestors had exactly the same problems with the power, water, gas, telephone and rail networks (at some point in time, all those were unregulated and privately owned) and did exactly that. Critical infrastructure needs to be heavily, regulated if not outright publicly owned.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Sure, let's make the public alternative, but I am strongly against taking over businesses.
  - llampx 6y ago
    I am strongly for taking over businesses which are de facto monopolies.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      If your public alternative can't win the users then "breaking the monopoly" will worsen the user experience. I don't want to live in that world - consider Telegram, a much better experience than WhatsApp, and it won over many users already. Evidently the monopoly is not as strong as is suggested. Telegram might not exist if there was a risk of losing the company. I don't want to be stuck with bad public software. In reality, when you destroy WhatsApp, people won't use the bad software, they will go to the next player and make it a "monopoly" because it most likely will be a better user experience.
      - PeterStuer 6y ago
        Network externalities in communication networks make it so that you can create a 10x better application and still have 0 chance of competing.
      - llampx 6y ago
        At every step of the way, Facebook has leveraged its size and existing troves of data to undermine and buy out the competition. The goals of Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Google are the same - world domination. Same as any mega conglomerate of years past. The difference now is tech scale and the willingness of regulators to allow it to happen.
        emteycz 6y ago
        Then how come my entire family and most friends use Telegram now?
        CRConrad 6y ago
        Network effect and evangelism — i.e. you. How come the absolutely, humongously overwhelming majority of families and friend groups don't use Telegram, but WhatsApp?
- hkt 6y ago
  Amen. Not to forget the things that were in co-operative ownership, either.
- fart32 6y ago
  I don't like the idea of government having full control of these services. I believe that we need fully decentralized system, much like the e-mail, but realtime and E2EE. Sadly, it seems to me that we're taking the opposite direction. Just few widely used messengers, all of them are centralized, some of them have E2EE, but who knows for how long - EU commission seems to like the idea of breaking in. No matter what their intentions are, I didn't sign up for that.
  - Shacklz 6y ago
    In essence I agree with you, but let's not forget that in most countries, the government has already complete (albeit strongly regulated) control and access to postal services and everything that is sent through them, and I think most citizens (me included) are okay with that as well. Furthermore; I'd much rather have the government spying in my stuff than Facebook selling my data to the highest bidder; at least if that were my only two choices.
    - fart32 6y ago
      > and everything that is sent through them Are you seriously comparing letters and private IM conversations? I don't know about you, but I received/sent maybe 5 letters in last 10 years, none of which were from/to another private entity. > I'd much rather have the government spying I consider this very short sighted and dangerours, but that's your choice. > at least if that were my only two choices Those are not your only two choices, that's kinda my point. We actually don't have to choose between a greedy company or a state. The only decision people need to make is centralized or decentralized system.
      - distances 6y ago
        I think this trust difference is a general division between Europe and US. Europeans generally trust their governments more than private companies, and vice versa in the US. I would assume both have valid reasons for this on their own side of the pond. For what it's worth, I too would trust the government a whole lot more than Facebook.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  I wrote a tweet thread about this which I will post here for convenience: Consolidation is a debt. You gain market cap at the cost of introducing systemic weakness and reducing broader market innovation. Once a company becomes a fundamental service they need to be regulated like a utility (I will illustrate with Facebook) Facebook can get the license to operate it but they also need to open up their API’s so others can build on top. These should become web standards governed by w3c. Facebook is an interesting case as this system would remove all the perverse incentives driving their business model (no more ads). It would also crash their stock. That value hasn’t disappeared though, it has been pushed out to the edge nodes of their network (specifically the companies building on top of their API’s). My thesis is that this model will increase the overall pot while reducing the share the largest players have. The knock-on effect of this is that investors will see this as the final outcome and be less incentivised to invest. That may be a problem as we don’t want to stop the emergence of billion scale companies altogether. Therefore a mechanism for the people to buy out the company at a fair legally agreed market value should be in place. This will stop crazy upsides and protect the undesirable downsides. The asset then becomes publicly owned but privately operated according to regulations. AI would fall under the same model. With open API’s and standards anyone can get the data they need to build new AI companies. Especially feasible if we move towards self-sovereign identities and crypto methods of exchange. To facilitate more small tech innovation we need to introduce a UBI. It will allow more people take risks with their time leading to more cottage innovation. In 100 years it will be a fundamental aspect of fiscal policy. Additionally education needs to be refocused on making things. People are not equipped with the skills to build things. There is no better way to learn, grow and generate value. If we want a diversified small tech eco-system economy we need to focus on helping people develop the skills that make it possible.
- Ygg2 6y ago
  I disagree. Facebook, Twitter and Google are ephemeral utilities. They will probably be replaced by another company. Privatizing them will just let someone else come along and Embrace, extend, extinguish them.
  - Closi 6y ago
    > They will probably be replaced by another company Nobody has a chance, but different reasons in each company: * What we have seen with Google - For a search engine, the more traffic you get the better results you can give (you can A-B test different algorithms for different queries, and optimise results). For new entrants they need to be popular before they can be better, which is a catch-22. Additionally Google has significant revenue which is very profitable because of it's monopoly position, and it can use this to reinvest in search technology to further widen the gap. It's going to take more than 2 people in a garage to beat modern Google at search! * For a social network, Facebook buy out any potential competition when it's gaining traction to further solidify their monopoly. See WhatsApp, Instagram, Friend.ly e.t.c.
    - Ygg2 6y ago
      > For a search engine, the more traffic you get the better results you can give Lately I have been noticing the opposite trend. Google search relevance is going downhil for me. I'm not sure when that started but I noticed it in 2019-ish last two years. Youtube search is so bad (note: I have history disabled), I rely on Google to search YouTube. Playing cat and mouse with SEO seems to have taken its toll. I find myself going to DDG and Bing a few times a week. Before it was only Google. > For a social network, Facebook buy out any potential competition when it's gaining traction to further solidify their monopoly. Maybe, but each of those competitors is essentially a fad, and Facebook forcing WhatsApp users to login via Facebook, to me seems more like desperate move, than anything else. I agree those acquisitions are IMO problematic, but I am not sure if they are strengthening Facebook, or killing it with a thousand cuts.
  - llampx 6y ago
    Them going out of business in 60 years doesn't mean we have to sit on our hands now.
- alex_duf 6y ago
  I think similarly to how europe has forced Banks to interoperate by making them write a protocol that can interoperate, governments need to force social media companies to write down a protocol and use it. I like the analogy with utilities, but the issue is that we pay for electricity, but we don't pay for our usage of social media. As long as that's true we can difficulty do what I'm suggesting above
  - simfoo 6y ago
    Exactly that. There needs to be a mandated federation protocol for instant messenger apps that have lets say > 10 million user in the EU.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    I think India's Unified Payments Interface is a better analogy here. From what I understand (as an outsider, so based only on what I've read) it provides a universal API for mobile applications to interface with banks, essentially standardizing the federation of bank transfers. Therefore, your account at bank X can be used to pay an account at bank Y for some service that uses app Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface
    - CRConrad 6y ago
      Why would that be a better analogy than the European system that allows you to do the exact same thing?
tdubhro1 6y ago
I'm also in the UK and I deleted WhatsApp 2 years ago when it became clear that Facebook intended to move in the direction of fuller integration (I deleted my Facebook account after 1 month of usage 10 years ago). However, I had to reinstall WhatsApp because all of my kid's sports activities and school updates are organised through WhatsApp groups and it is impossible to participate without WhatsApp. Much as I believe in the cause, I'm not going to go preach it to the volunteers who coach my kids' rugby team. The scary thing here is that the actual real-life "social network" has been privatised and monopolised, and now we can't participate in society in very important ways without going through Facebook.
- kar1181 6y ago
  This is precisely the dilemma in a nutshell. You have a choice but it's a bit like voluntary solitary confinement. Especially during a lockdown.
  - igravious 6y ago
    When I switched from Windows to Linux, sure there were some inconveniences but with enough technical knowledge and a bit of inconvenience I was able to get by. But social media? What do I switch to? > This is precisely the dilemma in a nutshell. Exactly my problem too (car mechanic, plumber, school parent committee, loads of my friends …) – I need my car fixed, I need my plumbing fixed, I need to communicate with other parents. I hate that I have no choice but to use a Facebook product when I am not even on Facebook!
  - toprea 6y ago
    Just thinking out loud here, as I was considering something like this. I can also not give up the WhatsApp account due to the social pressure. What if I would use a second phone, a cheap one, used only for the whatsapp (and some other essential but privacy invasive apps). I would not have that second phone always with me, but it would provide me access to the social network I need without feeling tracked or providing more data than needed. I do understand that this doesn't fix exactly the issue presented here, but I already assumed that whatsapp data was already in Facebook's hands one way or another. But I would limit the amount of information that WhatsApp can track about me by having this application on a phone which does not really represent my full actions as i don't have it with me. Edit: Corrected some typos.
helmholtz 6y ago
I'm in Europe, and I'm doing it to the best extent that I can: no permissions allowed to whatsapp, no profile picture, no read receipts, no notifications, sending a standard message to all personal groups that 'lads, I'm moving to signal, ciao'. Beyond that, I will not entertain personal messages on whatsapp, only work related. Each new person will be greeted with "Do you mind awfully if we use Signal?" Does this come off as self-important? Sure. But it helps that I don't care too much if it does. I had the same attitude quitting FB and Twitter too, I just don't need people that much. I don't have a 100 friends anyway. I have like 15 that I really want to keep in touch with. Those 15 will understand.
- wdb 6y ago
  What when other new person suggests Telegram? I have like four different messaging apps on my phone: WhatsApp, Telegram, Wechat and Link. Don’t need one more random app lol
  - etherealG 6y ago
    I’d love to switch to telegram, but their default messages aren’t even end to end encrypted. And secure messages are not available for groups. So it’s not a great option for privacy actually.
agd 6y ago
> but the inertia is so great it's not possible. It is possible, but difficult. You may lose access to some groups, but you can't have everything you want without some sacrifice. Personally, I'm leaving WhatsApp. Yes, my family and friends will be a bit annoyed about the hassle of contacting me separately, but so be it.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  What hassle would that be? They could send you SMS or call you. Would they really find that too difficult? The mind boggles.
  - edgarvaldes 6y ago
    1 on 1 can be done. But group communication? They will leave you out and it will be your burden to get the info using another channels.
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      That seems quite the choice to make: learn about group chats or send all your data to Facebook. It seems quite one-sided.
  - kubanczyk 6y ago
    WhatsApp means groups. A lot of groups. Both long-living and ephemeral.
- a254613e 6y ago
  That sort of behavior is very selfish, wouldn't you agree? You expect everyone to be annoyed and go through the hassle of contacting you, when you can't even keep one app installed to communicate with all of them. And in a lot of countries you wouldn't lose access to "some groups" but you would lose access to ALL of them, from social, to every other group.
  - agd 6y ago
ruairispain 6y ago
So many children using it. Wonder what the EU law is on data privacy and under age kids? Can under-18s legally sign this snooped data over to FB? Hope some lawyers can stop this in its tracks. Otherwise Signal or some other service will get our business
- kar1181 6y ago
  Children luckily are much more flexible and chop and change with the wind. It's the older folks once something is established it ends up becoming bedrock and super hard to change. Parents/Adults are busy if something 'works', there's a lot of resistance to changing it.
- MattJ100 6y ago
  Last I checked WhatsApp minimum age was 16 (in the EU at least) to comply with the regulations. Obviously that doesn't stop (many, many...) just using it anyway. But Facebook will happily turn a blind eye to this unless their hand is forced.
  - distances 6y ago
    Here all the kids use it as soon as they get a phone. If they can't write yet they'll send emojis (!!). The minimum age is just a meaningless smoke screen.
- Number157 6y ago
  Don't know about kids but I think there is some requirement that people can meaningfully say no. Seems this is a breach of such a requirement. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/redress/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-my-personal-data-protection-rights-havent-been-respected_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
  - etherealG 6y ago
    Sadly the law is written in a way that let’s the optional part be disregarded if the business considers the data that’s being shared necessary to run its business model... and advertising companies like Facebook will argue all data can help them sell ads better or for more money, hence all sharing of data shouldn’t need to be optional. This has yet to be tested in court, but both google and Facebook have taken this approach in their implementation of gdpr, leaving us wondering what the point was anyway... law without teeth :( the eu should have already slapped down google hard for their lack of an opt out, but it’s been years and still nothing. Seems the law makers aren’t really on the side of privacy after all.
MattJ100 6y ago
Yes, though I feel like people are finally (slowly) waking up to the problems here. Both the US and the EU are finally looking deeply into Facebook and other big tech. I don't think politicians are going to solve the problem for us entirely, but a bunch of us have been working on technical solutions for decades and they aren't the entire answer either. A little regulation combined with the right alternatives may go some way. I'm optimistic, though we have a very long road ahead.
- etherealG 6y ago
  Thanks for the positive outlook among many negative ones :) I hope we can find a good alternative in the market. Anyone know of alternatives that allow end to end encryption with group chat support so far?
chalst 6y ago
While WA is near ubiquitous in Germany, from my own experience many non-technical people in the UK prefer Telegram to WA. WA is the only way I can reach some of my contacts in Germany, but with my UK contacts I can avoid it altogether.
herbst 6y ago
I am in europe, switzerland and plenty of friends in austria. Yes many of my social circle have whatsapp but none is using it exclusively as it was some years ago. People have the choice and use it. Not sure what is holding other circles back? I havent had whatsapp in 4+ years and only rarely have to fall back to SMS
- Tepix 6y ago
  Do you have kids? What do they use?
  - herbst 6y ago
    I dont. Guess they would communicate by dancing on tiktok judging from my knowlege about teens these days :)
    - Tepix 6y ago
      Steganography or the dancing pigs problem? :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs
- dtech 6y ago
  What is the alternative are your social circles using? SMS is the only alternative with a wide install base and the experience is inferior to WA,Telegram etc.
  - herbst 6y ago
    Telegram, Signal, Discord, some via Email depends on the people. Everyone has a second or third messaging app
mrweasel 6y ago
It's a little more nuanced than that. I don't question that WhatsApp is huge, in some countries and social circles, but it's by no means dominating across Europe. Personally I'm not really sure who's using WhatsApp, I know two or three WhatsApp users. They all use it because they have friends other countries, mostly the middle east. If RCS actually becomes a thing, then I don't see much of a future for apps like WhatsApp.
- Tepix 6y ago
  > If RCS actually becomes a thing I have no reason to believe it will ever take off: It's been dead in the water since 2012 or even earlier. It doesn't support end-to-end encryption. Carriers would like to charge for it.
monkeydust 6y ago
As UK resident I fully echo this situation. I have Telegram and Signal installed and was chatting with friends above moving over (finally) but its painful especially right now. With right amount of incentive, force and numbers - tipping point could be reached but I cant see it happening in the current situation. With my cynical hat on I imagine FB know this and timed this policy change accordingly.
GuB-42 6y ago
In France, SMS is still the most common, even though it is declining. I think it is historic: we had cheap unlimited SMS plans before internet data plans were common. WhatsApp is popular but not a monopoly. Not really something to celebrate since its main "competitor" and #1 instant messenger app is Facebook Messenger. Skype and Discord are also significant, and I expect iMessage to be important too.
- worldsayshi 6y ago
  But with SMS group messaging is rather cumbersome no?
  - ddrdrck_ 6y ago
    Yes, which is exactly why WhatsApp has replaced SMS : group messaging. People still use SMS for 1 to 1 conversation in France
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      Based on all the groups my wife is part of, it seems other people get absolutely nothing done in life since they appear to be sending pointless messages on a group constantly. Her phone is constantly buzzing, and 99.9% of it is utter nonsense. It seems to me that the inability to easily message a group would be a bonus and not a loss!
gizzlon 6y ago
Not possible? I think you mean that it's painful. And it is, and I sympathize, but you and your family will not die or starve. It's possible. I'm fed up an will remove fb and wa from my phone, at least. It will be painful
timvisee 6y ago
Ditched it about 2 years ago. And man, it's so hard! Literally everybody uses it here in the Netherlands as well. I'm getting strange looks every day when people hear I don't use the platform. It's horrendous. I also really fear for the moment where I've to tell a nice girl I met that I don't use the platform, and that we should use X other platform instead. I can imagine that to be a letdown or to be weird. That's insane to me.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  I got used to the strange looks. I got the strange looks when people heard I didn't use Facebook. If you asked them to sign up to a website on the Internet that was popular in your circles just so you could be friends, they'd refuse, eg. "please sign up to basschat.co.uk because all my friends like bass guitars". If their friendship relies on you installing an app on your phone, that's a very shallow friendship isn't it?
  - dd_roger 6y ago
    > If their friendship relies on you installing an app on your phone, that's a very shallow friendship isn't it? This argument doesn't make sense. You can't just ignore practical aspects entirely and justify it with a cheeky "if they're truely your friends they'll accomodate ahah". Sure if I want to send a private message to a friend I don't care whether its via SMS or whatsapp, but if I'm in a group chat with 5 of my friends I won't send a transcript of the conversation to the one person who doesn't participate.
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      Why not inform your friend of the outcome? Half of the group chats seem to be utter nonsense until a final outcome is made, particularly with arranging something. Or would you not want your friend to attend? The choice is: do I want my friend to be included in my activities? The choice is not: do I want my friend to be included and also send all of his data to some people I've never met?
      - 6y ago
ksec 6y ago
Blame Carrier. Modern SMS could have been great, but Carrier didn't want to lose the however minimal revenue they had with SMS. ( Not every countries has unlimited SMS across all Network and across the world ) Or Blame MSN, the Instant Messenger, when Microsoft refuse to admit defeat to the Smartphone platform. So WhatsApp took over in EU ( I believe iMessages or SMS is still popular in France ), UK, SEA, Brazil, Hong Kong. Line in Japan and Taiwan, KakaoTalk in South Korea. Unsure about Australia and Canada. ( They use WhatsApp but not to the extent of countries listed above. ) And it is iMessages in US. I have no idea why that thing even took off. I have tried it dozen times over the years and every few months it has problem with message delivery, people in group not receiving any messages. Poor Searching capabilities etc.... Telegram has gain usage but for different kind of reason. And I dont see it ever being used in the same manner as WhatsApp. So most of friends just clicked yes and share their Data. It is important to note despite the increasing hostility against FB on HN, and in Tech Circle, most people in the world seems to have no problem with it. I dont see WhatsApp going away any time soon. Edit: How does this data sharing fit in with GDPR in EU?
- rutthenut 6y ago
  Carriers now looking to RCS as the messenger alternative, but if they price it like MMS, they will kill it. To do it cheaper, they have to give a large chunk of the service to Google, which gives Google the data mining opportunities :(
  - mrweasel 6y ago
    MMS is free at this point, in many countries. The carriers in those countries will make more money by using RCS, because it will use cellular data (at least if I understand it correctly), which isn't free. My point being that I don't think many carriers care about text messaging, or phone calls. They sell you a fixed cost plan for those. The only thing that can really affect your price is data usage. If Google wants to deal with the hassle of managing a messaging platform, great, that's money save on running a service that isn't making money anyway.
    - 6y ago
pmlnr 6y ago
> I'd change to Signal or Telegram in a heartbeat, but the inertia is so great it's not possible. It has to start somewhere. It is possible, but it takes will, and the acceptance that you will lose some contacts.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  Most of my friends have migrated to Telegram now.
fpoling 6y ago
In Norway WhatsUp is popular, but my dentist still use SMS and email, and so other businesses that I interact with. My son’s school has own app for communicating with parents and teachers use Teams to present online lectures. My son uses Discord to talk to friends, but I think he is an exception. What is really problematic is Facebook monopoly for organizing any social activities or events. There are simply no alternatives especially among 30-50 years old. Like the saying, “What parents were afraid video game would do to children, Facebook did to parents.”
Timpy 6y ago
When I lived in Russia my doctor messaged me via WhatsApp. I'm American so I was a little culture shocked, I don't know if this is standard procedure or anything but it illustrates how ubiquitous WhatsApp is. I'm so anti-Facebook now that it's a part of the way I identify myself, and for all that I can't delete it. I maintain contact with a friend in Germany via Whatsapp or Facebook messenger, and in this case it would be possible to use email (which is not nearly as casual as firing off a message in your spare moments) or some other service but it doesn't solve the problem about friend groups. I have friend groups around the world that my only way to participate in is Facebook. I believe moving abroad is in my future again, and Messenger is detestably the only real way to keep up with my friends back home. Leaving Facebook and Messenger is like leaving a bar I hate; I'm only here for the people and I wish we could go somewhere else.
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  For younger friends, I found that they can sometimes install a 2nd messenger, depending on how close you are. Of course, if they already use 2 or 3, you might need to use one that they have. I would suggest to check if they use Telegram/Line/Kakao/Hangouts, or suggest it to them. They are all closed source, but at least is the lesser evil?
- thw0rted 6y ago
  I've lived in Germany for years and I do feel like, if we're going to stereotype people by nationality, they're one of the most privacy-sensitive groups you'll find. This is the country where, by law, if somebody picks up a (land-line) phone in the house, any other phone currently in use has to shut off. I'm not saying you can definitely convince that friend to get off WA / FB, but it's worth a shot. (I don't know what to replace it with -- I mostly use Hangouts but it really feels like it's falling apart.)
grumple 6y ago
You guys do have emails though, why isn’t that used instead?
HeavyStorm 6y ago
It's hard for most of to world remember that there isn't just US, UK and Europe in this globe...
john_minsk 6y ago
Just use something else....
kolla 6y ago
I hardly know anyone who uses Whatsapp, people mostly use messenger in swe, nor, fin, den.
comeonseriously 6y ago
Assign everyone an IP V6, there's plenty. Then treat that as our internet phone number. Define a chat protocol that contains the very basics and everyone has to support that. Want to send a chat, you have their IP V6. Exchange using QR code. No server necessary for the basics. If a text fails sending device can keep trying or just give up. This takes chat away from any single service.
- the_french 6y ago
  This approach ignores all the aspects that made whatsapp / chat services popular in the first place. A short list: - Contact Discovery - Group chats - History / Log - Shared message order - Communication beyond text (emojis / reactions / inline images) - Ability to receive messages while offline - No need for technical skills These aren't trivial features, they are prerequisites for any replacement, decentralized or otherwise. Just because we as developers like / tolerate things like IRC doesn't mean the rest of the world will accept it.
  - ozborn 6y ago
    Everything you list could be supported at the client level with a decentralized IP6 level protocol without a need for a centralized server middleman.
    - etherealG 6y ago
      Sounds great! Let me know when you’ve built it so I can try it out :)
- MayeulC 6y ago
  Unfortunately, IPv6 addresses have to be assigned by someone, and they typically change when moving around/changing provider. And you have to go trough the firewall... I prefer something you can generate yourself, like encryption keys. That's the approach taken by yggdrasil (and cjdns before): generate an encryption key, map the public part to an IP address (there's almost enough bits in v6). Plus, it can easily be end-to-end encrypted. Another plus is that you can generate as many as desired. As for the protocol, Matrix is experimenting a bit with going p2p. https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/ https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/
baliex 6y ago
"Be the change you want to see in the world" -- I'm gonna have a go at switching as many people away as possible; friends, family, co-workers. It's all about critical mass so every step in that direction is a step toward your school and local community communications being on some alternative platform instead.
mslack616 6y ago
Not only Europe and UK, LATAM is also pretty much governed by WA. I remember one time I had a visit of some folks from Canada, they were very surprised that we used it as our main chat/communication app. When I asked why, they said "we don't hear from it (referring to WA) that much, we all just use iMessage" I guess in their context/community most people own iPhones.
- etherealG 6y ago
  Exactly, the usage of iOS in some countries is high, and that’s where WhatsApp didn’t win as the most used chat.
sebow 6y ago
Be the change you want to see. I mean sure it requires to be a little charismatic and usually to be an inspirational figure, but i quit facebook & messenger in 2015 and since then a lot of my friends(whom i never talked on the matter) made the switch. Simple explanations like: "it's made to be a drug" and some of the negatives (like privacy here) switch more people than you think. And i totally disagree on making these corporations utilities: you're just giving them access to more possible critical infrastructure they can datamine, which is what it's being done on billions of people through these 'apps'.
dusted 6y ago
I disagree, they're NOT public utilities, they're private companies that people chose to use (why is beyond me). What could be considered instead, is building public utilities as a community.
- corty 6y ago
  Almost all public utilities have started as private companies of some kind. Broadcast, telecom and railway companies are the most recent examples. They started as private companies but then, due to limited spectrum, unification pressure, needing to include everyone including remote places and wasteful duplication got transformed into publically owned or at least publically licensed and regulated utilities (depending on which utility and country you are looking at). So, while they are not yet public utilities, they should be turned into such.
sireat 6y ago
I can cut out WhatsApp from professional use no problem. There is no way to cut WhatsApp from casual/family use in Europe. Schools, kindergartens, mechanics, contractors, plumbers everyone uses it. The problem is that WhatsApp is the easiest method to share photos on mobile. If you do not have WhatsApp your plumber can not send you a picture of pipes they fixed. How do you work around that? Other parents are using WhatsApp for organizing out of school activities. Again, there is no way to go full Stallman here...
antpls 6y ago
That's not true, I live in West Europe and I never used Whatsapp in my life. There are always alternatives to get informed here.
TheRealSteel 6y ago
Yep, in Australia I had basically never used WhatsApp. It's barely a thing. (However, Facebook Messenger dominates there, so it's not as if the privacy situation is any better, Facebook Messenger is just a better app/website to use). Here in the UK I am literally required to be on WhatsApp to live in the building I currently live in. I have no choice in this matter. It's just the default messaging service for everyone. If you join any kind of club? WhatsApp group. If you want to talk to someone about renting a room or apartment? WhatsApp chat. Live with housemates? WhatsApp group. Plus the whole fact that if I deleted facebook, I would cut off contact with my friends and family (I can't expect like 25 people all to switch messaging services just for me). I would lose access to my thousand-dollar Oculus VR headset (I hate them so much for buying and linking facebook and Oculus, and hope a better competing standalone headset comes out). And don't forget, you can't use an Oculus Quest with a blank facebook account you made just for that - they actually check that you're really using the account and force you to verify with photos and ID. They are the absolute epitome of evil. Facebook, in many ways, but particularly in regard to Oculus, is a moustache-twirlingly, cartoonishly evil organization. Could I just never buy an Oculus? Hopefully one day. But when not just your hobbies, but also your study and skillset and career prospects are right in that industry, you swallow your pride and make a damn facebook account. I was also required to be in facebook groups for university classes back when I was a student. I HAD to be on facebook to get a degree. And for an amateur theatre group I joined. Not to mention everything going on with misinformation about elections, vaccines, etcetera etcetera. Some of this stuff is now moving to Discord, which is probably better than anything owned by facebook, but being better than facebook is a damn low bar, and Discord is still ultimately a for-profit corporation that would sell your soul if it made them a dollar. This "just stop using it" attitude you always get on Hacker News and reddit about facebook and their various messaging platforms baffles me. Do you people not have lives? Jobs? Friends? Family? If you (in or out of a pandemic lockdown) want to do just about anything outside your house, or a whole bunch of things inside it, you need to use Facebook services. It sucks and I've love to stop supporting them but it's not like most of us have a realistic choice.
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  > This "just stop using it" attitude you always get on Hacker News and reddit about facebook and their various messaging platforms baffles me. Unfortunately, seems that for many people on HN, HN is almost all their online social interaction, + tech people on signal/mastodon. Some don't seem to understand the concept of having family and friends who are not tech-savy (or even hate tech). Or understand the concept of social capital.
pjmlp 6y ago
Also in Africa, most business live out from WhatsApp. You will find WhatsApp contacts for any kind of communication, ordering a taxi, food, whatever. Move out of WhatsApp, and it is going to be quite boring out in the Savannah.
pier25 6y ago
Same in Mexico and (AFAIK) most LATAM countries. If I need anything to be delivered to the house I need to use Whatsapp (gas, water, food, etc).
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
>how much of a monopoly WhatsApp has in Europe and the UK Everything you said applies to the Indian subcontinent, SE Asia and South America which form the bulk of the WhatsApp user base as well but with lesser or no scrutiny whatsoever when compared to EU/UK.
aeyes 6y ago
Not just Europe + UK, LATAM is all WhatsApp. Net neutrality not existing helps WhatsApp and other services here, one cell provider for example offers 1 year unlimited WhatsApp+Facebook including voice and video calls for a total (not monthly!) cost of 3USD on a prepaid chip. So you can't call, you can't write SMS, you can't use the internet but you can use WhatsApp for almost no cost. If you are on a budget this is a no brainer, for comparison - 5GB full internet access on the same chip is around 5$. How are you going to break such a monopoly supported by providers? At this point it is something all providers do so if one starts offering it all other providers have a competitive advantage because everybody is already using WhatsApp. I am not sure if Facebook pays these providers, my guess is not - they are pushed into this by their competitors. Net neutrality is very important to not let this happen. Similar deals exist for other popular services: Instagram, Youtube, TikTok, Spotify, Snapchat, Twitter, Netflix to name a few
seniorivn 6y ago
no they don't need to be treated like anything, they are completely new thing, so if you think that their dominant market position is an issue, they can be forced to implement public api(open standart), therefore unlocking their userbase and allowing infinite competition
hyko 6y ago
faced with the option of accepting or being cut off from their local community. It’s a deal!
niutech 6y ago
Why not make a local WhatsApp<->Signal bridge using Matrix (https://matrix.org/bridges/ https://matrix.org/bridges/) and a disposable SIM card, and just use Signal app on your phone?
- etherealG 6y ago
  Is that easy to do? I thought WhatsApp didn’t allow api access.
hp77 6y ago
Same case here in India, Sucks to have these apps despite knowing what they are doing just because your School or College groups are on these platforms. I tried educating my fellow mates about this but seems unlikely that it will have any effect.
randomsearch 6y ago
Just an obvious point - you don’t have to “change”. You can install both and use signal as much as you can. This costs you almost nothing, maybe just a little app switching. Not much to pay for a better world.

ravingraven 6y ago

>Twitter, Facebook and Google need to be treated like utilities [...] Our generation is reinventing the wheel here, our ancestors had exactly the same problems with the power, water, gas, telephone and rail networks (at some point in time, all those were unregulated and privately owned) and did exactly that. Critical infrastructure needs to be heavily, regulated if not outright publicly owned.

emteycz 6y ago
Sure, let's make the public alternative, but I am strongly against taking over businesses.
- llampx 6y ago
  I am strongly for taking over businesses which are de facto monopolies.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    If your public alternative can't win the users then "breaking the monopoly" will worsen the user experience. I don't want to live in that world - consider Telegram, a much better experience than WhatsApp, and it won over many users already. Evidently the monopoly is not as strong as is suggested. Telegram might not exist if there was a risk of losing the company. I don't want to be stuck with bad public software. In reality, when you destroy WhatsApp, people won't use the bad software, they will go to the next player and make it a "monopoly" because it most likely will be a better user experience.
    - PeterStuer 6y ago
      Network externalities in communication networks make it so that you can create a 10x better application and still have 0 chance of competing.
    - llampx 6y ago
      At every step of the way, Facebook has leveraged its size and existing troves of data to undermine and buy out the competition. The goals of Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Google are the same - world domination. Same as any mega conglomerate of years past. The difference now is tech scale and the willingness of regulators to allow it to happen.
      - emteycz 6y ago
        Then how come my entire family and most friends use Telegram now?
        CRConrad 6y ago
        Network effect and evangelism — i.e. you. How come the absolutely, humongously overwhelming majority of families and friend groups don't use Telegram, but WhatsApp?
hkt 6y ago
Amen. Not to forget the things that were in co-operative ownership, either.
fart32 6y ago
I don't like the idea of government having full control of these services. I believe that we need fully decentralized system, much like the e-mail, but realtime and E2EE. Sadly, it seems to me that we're taking the opposite direction. Just few widely used messengers, all of them are centralized, some of them have E2EE, but who knows for how long - EU commission seems to like the idea of breaking in. No matter what their intentions are, I didn't sign up for that.
- Shacklz 6y ago
  In essence I agree with you, but let's not forget that in most countries, the government has already complete (albeit strongly regulated) control and access to postal services and everything that is sent through them, and I think most citizens (me included) are okay with that as well. Furthermore; I'd much rather have the government spying in my stuff than Facebook selling my data to the highest bidder; at least if that were my only two choices.
  - fart32 6y ago
    > and everything that is sent through them Are you seriously comparing letters and private IM conversations? I don't know about you, but I received/sent maybe 5 letters in last 10 years, none of which were from/to another private entity. > I'd much rather have the government spying I consider this very short sighted and dangerours, but that's your choice. > at least if that were my only two choices Those are not your only two choices, that's kinda my point. We actually don't have to choose between a greedy company or a state. The only decision people need to make is centralized or decentralized system.
    - distances 6y ago
      I think this trust difference is a general division between Europe and US. Europeans generally trust their governments more than private companies, and vice versa in the US. I would assume both have valid reasons for this on their own side of the pond. For what it's worth, I too would trust the government a whole lot more than Facebook.
rorykoehler 6y ago
I wrote a tweet thread about this which I will post here for convenience: Consolidation is a debt. You gain market cap at the cost of introducing systemic weakness and reducing broader market innovation. Once a company becomes a fundamental service they need to be regulated like a utility (I will illustrate with Facebook) Facebook can get the license to operate it but they also need to open up their API’s so others can build on top. These should become web standards governed by w3c. Facebook is an interesting case as this system would remove all the perverse incentives driving their business model (no more ads). It would also crash their stock. That value hasn’t disappeared though, it has been pushed out to the edge nodes of their network (specifically the companies building on top of their API’s). My thesis is that this model will increase the overall pot while reducing the share the largest players have. The knock-on effect of this is that investors will see this as the final outcome and be less incentivised to invest. That may be a problem as we don’t want to stop the emergence of billion scale companies altogether. Therefore a mechanism for the people to buy out the company at a fair legally agreed market value should be in place. This will stop crazy upsides and protect the undesirable downsides. The asset then becomes publicly owned but privately operated according to regulations. AI would fall under the same model. With open API’s and standards anyone can get the data they need to build new AI companies. Especially feasible if we move towards self-sovereign identities and crypto methods of exchange. To facilitate more small tech innovation we need to introduce a UBI. It will allow more people take risks with their time leading to more cottage innovation. In 100 years it will be a fundamental aspect of fiscal policy. Additionally education needs to be refocused on making things. People are not equipped with the skills to build things. There is no better way to learn, grow and generate value. If we want a diversified small tech eco-system economy we need to focus on helping people develop the skills that make it possible.
Ygg2 6y ago
I disagree. Facebook, Twitter and Google are ephemeral utilities. They will probably be replaced by another company. Privatizing them will just let someone else come along and Embrace, extend, extinguish them.
- Closi 6y ago
  > They will probably be replaced by another company Nobody has a chance, but different reasons in each company: * What we have seen with Google - For a search engine, the more traffic you get the better results you can give (you can A-B test different algorithms for different queries, and optimise results). For new entrants they need to be popular before they can be better, which is a catch-22. Additionally Google has significant revenue which is very profitable because of it's monopoly position, and it can use this to reinvest in search technology to further widen the gap. It's going to take more than 2 people in a garage to beat modern Google at search! * For a social network, Facebook buy out any potential competition when it's gaining traction to further solidify their monopoly. See WhatsApp, Instagram, Friend.ly e.t.c.
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    > For a search engine, the more traffic you get the better results you can give Lately I have been noticing the opposite trend. Google search relevance is going downhil for me. I'm not sure when that started but I noticed it in 2019-ish last two years. Youtube search is so bad (note: I have history disabled), I rely on Google to search YouTube. Playing cat and mouse with SEO seems to have taken its toll. I find myself going to DDG and Bing a few times a week. Before it was only Google. > For a social network, Facebook buy out any potential competition when it's gaining traction to further solidify their monopoly. Maybe, but each of those competitors is essentially a fad, and Facebook forcing WhatsApp users to login via Facebook, to me seems more like desperate move, than anything else. I agree those acquisitions are IMO problematic, but I am not sure if they are strengthening Facebook, or killing it with a thousand cuts.
- llampx 6y ago
  Them going out of business in 60 years doesn't mean we have to sit on our hands now.
alex_duf 6y ago
I think similarly to how europe has forced Banks to interoperate by making them write a protocol that can interoperate, governments need to force social media companies to write down a protocol and use it. I like the analogy with utilities, but the issue is that we pay for electricity, but we don't pay for our usage of social media. As long as that's true we can difficulty do what I'm suggesting above
- simfoo 6y ago
  Exactly that. There needs to be a mandated federation protocol for instant messenger apps that have lets say > 10 million user in the EU.
- vinay427 6y ago
  I think India's Unified Payments Interface is a better analogy here. From what I understand (as an outsider, so based only on what I've read) it provides a universal API for mobile applications to interface with banks, essentially standardizing the federation of bank transfers. Therefore, your account at bank X can be used to pay an account at bank Y for some service that uses app Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface
  - CRConrad 6y ago
    Why would that be a better analogy than the European system that allows you to do the exact same thing?

tdubhro1 6y ago

I'm also in the UK and I deleted WhatsApp 2 years ago when it became clear that Facebook intended to move in the direction of fuller integration (I deleted my Facebook account after 1 month of usage 10 years ago). However, I had to reinstall WhatsApp because all of my kid's sports activities and school updates are organised through WhatsApp groups and it is impossible to participate without WhatsApp. Much as I believe in the cause, I'm not going to go preach it to the volunteers who coach my kids' rugby team. The scary thing here is that the actual real-life "social network" has been privatised and monopolised, and now we can't participate in society in very important ways without going through Facebook.

kar1181 6y ago
This is precisely the dilemma in a nutshell. You have a choice but it's a bit like voluntary solitary confinement. Especially during a lockdown.
- igravious 6y ago
  When I switched from Windows to Linux, sure there were some inconveniences but with enough technical knowledge and a bit of inconvenience I was able to get by. But social media? What do I switch to? > This is precisely the dilemma in a nutshell. Exactly my problem too (car mechanic, plumber, school parent committee, loads of my friends …) – I need my car fixed, I need my plumbing fixed, I need to communicate with other parents. I hate that I have no choice but to use a Facebook product when I am not even on Facebook!
- toprea 6y ago
  Just thinking out loud here, as I was considering something like this. I can also not give up the WhatsApp account due to the social pressure. What if I would use a second phone, a cheap one, used only for the whatsapp (and some other essential but privacy invasive apps). I would not have that second phone always with me, but it would provide me access to the social network I need without feeling tracked or providing more data than needed. I do understand that this doesn't fix exactly the issue presented here, but I already assumed that whatsapp data was already in Facebook's hands one way or another. But I would limit the amount of information that WhatsApp can track about me by having this application on a phone which does not really represent my full actions as i don't have it with me. Edit: Corrected some typos.

helmholtz 6y ago

I'm in Europe, and I'm doing it to the best extent that I can: no permissions allowed to whatsapp, no profile picture, no read receipts, no notifications, sending a standard message to all personal groups that 'lads, I'm moving to signal, ciao'. Beyond that, I will not entertain personal messages on whatsapp, only work related. Each new person will be greeted with "Do you mind awfully if we use Signal?" Does this come off as self-important? Sure. But it helps that I don't care too much if it does. I had the same attitude quitting FB and Twitter too, I just don't need people that much. I don't have a 100 friends anyway. I have like 15 that I really want to keep in touch with. Those 15 will understand.

wdb 6y ago
What when other new person suggests Telegram? I have like four different messaging apps on my phone: WhatsApp, Telegram, Wechat and Link. Don’t need one more random app lol
- etherealG 6y ago
  I’d love to switch to telegram, but their default messages aren’t even end to end encrypted. And secure messages are not available for groups. So it’s not a great option for privacy actually.

agd 6y ago

> but the inertia is so great it's not possible. It is possible, but difficult. You may lose access to some groups, but you can't have everything you want without some sacrifice. Personally, I'm leaving WhatsApp. Yes, my family and friends will be a bit annoyed about the hassle of contacting me separately, but so be it.

72deluxe 6y ago
What hassle would that be? They could send you SMS or call you. Would they really find that too difficult? The mind boggles.
- edgarvaldes 6y ago
  1 on 1 can be done. But group communication? They will leave you out and it will be your burden to get the info using another channels.
  - 72deluxe 6y ago
    That seems quite the choice to make: learn about group chats or send all your data to Facebook. It seems quite one-sided.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  WhatsApp means groups. A lot of groups. Both long-living and ephemeral.
a254613e 6y ago
That sort of behavior is very selfish, wouldn't you agree? You expect everyone to be annoyed and go through the hassle of contacting you, when you can't even keep one app installed to communicate with all of them. And in a lot of countries you wouldn't lose access to "some groups" but you would lose access to ALL of them, from social, to every other group.
- agd 6y ago

ruairispain 6y ago

So many children using it. Wonder what the EU law is on data privacy and under age kids? Can under-18s legally sign this snooped data over to FB? Hope some lawyers can stop this in its tracks. Otherwise Signal or some other service will get our business

kar1181 6y ago
Children luckily are much more flexible and chop and change with the wind. It's the older folks once something is established it ends up becoming bedrock and super hard to change. Parents/Adults are busy if something 'works', there's a lot of resistance to changing it.
MattJ100 6y ago
Last I checked WhatsApp minimum age was 16 (in the EU at least) to comply with the regulations. Obviously that doesn't stop (many, many...) just using it anyway. But Facebook will happily turn a blind eye to this unless their hand is forced.
- distances 6y ago
  Here all the kids use it as soon as they get a phone. If they can't write yet they'll send emojis (!!). The minimum age is just a meaningless smoke screen.
Number157 6y ago
Don't know about kids but I think there is some requirement that people can meaningfully say no. Seems this is a breach of such a requirement. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/redress/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-my-personal-data-protection-rights-havent-been-respected_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
- etherealG 6y ago
  Sadly the law is written in a way that let’s the optional part be disregarded if the business considers the data that’s being shared necessary to run its business model... and advertising companies like Facebook will argue all data can help them sell ads better or for more money, hence all sharing of data shouldn’t need to be optional. This has yet to be tested in court, but both google and Facebook have taken this approach in their implementation of gdpr, leaving us wondering what the point was anyway... law without teeth :( the eu should have already slapped down google hard for their lack of an opt out, but it’s been years and still nothing. Seems the law makers aren’t really on the side of privacy after all.

MattJ100 6y ago

Yes, though I feel like people are finally (slowly) waking up to the problems here. Both the US and the EU are finally looking deeply into Facebook and other big tech. I don't think politicians are going to solve the problem for us entirely, but a bunch of us have been working on technical solutions for decades and they aren't the entire answer either. A little regulation combined with the right alternatives may go some way. I'm optimistic, though we have a very long road ahead.

etherealG 6y ago
Thanks for the positive outlook among many negative ones :) I hope we can find a good alternative in the market. Anyone know of alternatives that allow end to end encryption with group chat support so far?

chalst 6y ago

While WA is near ubiquitous in Germany, from my own experience many non-technical people in the UK prefer Telegram to WA. WA is the only way I can reach some of my contacts in Germany, but with my UK contacts I can avoid it altogether.

herbst 6y ago

I am in europe, switzerland and plenty of friends in austria. Yes many of my social circle have whatsapp but none is using it exclusively as it was some years ago. People have the choice and use it. Not sure what is holding other circles back? I havent had whatsapp in 4+ years and only rarely have to fall back to SMS

Tepix 6y ago
Do you have kids? What do they use?
- herbst 6y ago
  I dont. Guess they would communicate by dancing on tiktok judging from my knowlege about teens these days :)
  - Tepix 6y ago
    Steganography or the dancing pigs problem? :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs
dtech 6y ago
What is the alternative are your social circles using? SMS is the only alternative with a wide install base and the experience is inferior to WA,Telegram etc.
- herbst 6y ago
  Telegram, Signal, Discord, some via Email depends on the people. Everyone has a second or third messaging app

mrweasel 6y ago

It's a little more nuanced than that. I don't question that WhatsApp is huge, in some countries and social circles, but it's by no means dominating across Europe. Personally I'm not really sure who's using WhatsApp, I know two or three WhatsApp users. They all use it because they have friends other countries, mostly the middle east. If RCS actually becomes a thing, then I don't see much of a future for apps like WhatsApp.

Tepix 6y ago
> If RCS actually becomes a thing I have no reason to believe it will ever take off: It's been dead in the water since 2012 or even earlier. It doesn't support end-to-end encryption. Carriers would like to charge for it.

monkeydust 6y ago

As UK resident I fully echo this situation. I have Telegram and Signal installed and was chatting with friends above moving over (finally) but its painful especially right now. With right amount of incentive, force and numbers - tipping point could be reached but I cant see it happening in the current situation. With my cynical hat on I imagine FB know this and timed this policy change accordingly.

GuB-42 6y ago

In France, SMS is still the most common, even though it is declining. I think it is historic: we had cheap unlimited SMS plans before internet data plans were common. WhatsApp is popular but not a monopoly. Not really something to celebrate since its main "competitor" and #1 instant messenger app is Facebook Messenger. Skype and Discord are also significant, and I expect iMessage to be important too.

worldsayshi 6y ago
But with SMS group messaging is rather cumbersome no?
- ddrdrck_ 6y ago
  Yes, which is exactly why WhatsApp has replaced SMS : group messaging. People still use SMS for 1 to 1 conversation in France
  - 72deluxe 6y ago
    Based on all the groups my wife is part of, it seems other people get absolutely nothing done in life since they appear to be sending pointless messages on a group constantly. Her phone is constantly buzzing, and 99.9% of it is utter nonsense. It seems to me that the inability to easily message a group would be a bonus and not a loss!

gizzlon 6y ago

Not possible? I think you mean that it's painful. And it is, and I sympathize, but you and your family will not die or starve. It's possible. I'm fed up an will remove fb and wa from my phone, at least. It will be painful

timvisee 6y ago

Ditched it about 2 years ago. And man, it's so hard! Literally everybody uses it here in the Netherlands as well. I'm getting strange looks every day when people hear I don't use the platform. It's horrendous. I also really fear for the moment where I've to tell a nice girl I met that I don't use the platform, and that we should use X other platform instead. I can imagine that to be a letdown or to be weird. That's insane to me.

72deluxe 6y ago
I got used to the strange looks. I got the strange looks when people heard I didn't use Facebook. If you asked them to sign up to a website on the Internet that was popular in your circles just so you could be friends, they'd refuse, eg. "please sign up to basschat.co.uk because all my friends like bass guitars". If their friendship relies on you installing an app on your phone, that's a very shallow friendship isn't it?
- dd_roger 6y ago
  > If their friendship relies on you installing an app on your phone, that's a very shallow friendship isn't it? This argument doesn't make sense. You can't just ignore practical aspects entirely and justify it with a cheeky "if they're truely your friends they'll accomodate ahah". Sure if I want to send a private message to a friend I don't care whether its via SMS or whatsapp, but if I'm in a group chat with 5 of my friends I won't send a transcript of the conversation to the one person who doesn't participate.
  - 72deluxe 6y ago
    Why not inform your friend of the outcome? Half of the group chats seem to be utter nonsense until a final outcome is made, particularly with arranging something. Or would you not want your friend to attend? The choice is: do I want my friend to be included in my activities? The choice is not: do I want my friend to be included and also send all of his data to some people I've never met?
    - 6y ago

ksec 6y ago

Blame Carrier. Modern SMS could have been great, but Carrier didn't want to lose the however minimal revenue they had with SMS. ( Not every countries has unlimited SMS across all Network and across the world ) Or Blame MSN, the Instant Messenger, when Microsoft refuse to admit defeat to the Smartphone platform. So WhatsApp took over in EU ( I believe iMessages or SMS is still popular in France ), UK, SEA, Brazil, Hong Kong. Line in Japan and Taiwan, KakaoTalk in South Korea. Unsure about Australia and Canada. ( They use WhatsApp but not to the extent of countries listed above. ) And it is iMessages in US. I have no idea why that thing even took off. I have tried it dozen times over the years and every few months it has problem with message delivery, people in group not receiving any messages. Poor Searching capabilities etc.... Telegram has gain usage but for different kind of reason. And I dont see it ever being used in the same manner as WhatsApp. So most of friends just clicked yes and share their Data. It is important to note despite the increasing hostility against FB on HN, and in Tech Circle, most people in the world seems to have no problem with it. I dont see WhatsApp going away any time soon. Edit: How does this data sharing fit in with GDPR in EU?

rutthenut 6y ago
Carriers now looking to RCS as the messenger alternative, but if they price it like MMS, they will kill it. To do it cheaper, they have to give a large chunk of the service to Google, which gives Google the data mining opportunities :(
- mrweasel 6y ago
  MMS is free at this point, in many countries. The carriers in those countries will make more money by using RCS, because it will use cellular data (at least if I understand it correctly), which isn't free. My point being that I don't think many carriers care about text messaging, or phone calls. They sell you a fixed cost plan for those. The only thing that can really affect your price is data usage. If Google wants to deal with the hassle of managing a messaging platform, great, that's money save on running a service that isn't making money anyway.
  - 6y ago

pmlnr 6y ago

> I'd change to Signal or Telegram in a heartbeat, but the inertia is so great it's not possible. It has to start somewhere. It is possible, but it takes will, and the acceptance that you will lose some contacts.

rorykoehler 6y ago
Most of my friends have migrated to Telegram now.

fpoling 6y ago

In Norway WhatsUp is popular, but my dentist still use SMS and email, and so other businesses that I interact with. My son’s school has own app for communicating with parents and teachers use Teams to present online lectures. My son uses Discord to talk to friends, but I think he is an exception. What is really problematic is Facebook monopoly for organizing any social activities or events. There are simply no alternatives especially among 30-50 years old. Like the saying, “What parents were afraid video game would do to children, Facebook did to parents.”

Timpy 6y ago

When I lived in Russia my doctor messaged me via WhatsApp. I'm American so I was a little culture shocked, I don't know if this is standard procedure or anything but it illustrates how ubiquitous WhatsApp is. I'm so anti-Facebook now that it's a part of the way I identify myself, and for all that I can't delete it. I maintain contact with a friend in Germany via Whatsapp or Facebook messenger, and in this case it would be possible to use email (which is not nearly as casual as firing off a message in your spare moments) or some other service but it doesn't solve the problem about friend groups. I have friend groups around the world that my only way to participate in is Facebook. I believe moving abroad is in my future again, and Messenger is detestably the only real way to keep up with my friends back home. Leaving Facebook and Messenger is like leaving a bar I hate; I'm only here for the people and I wish we could go somewhere else.

FalconSensei 6y ago
For younger friends, I found that they can sometimes install a 2nd messenger, depending on how close you are. Of course, if they already use 2 or 3, you might need to use one that they have. I would suggest to check if they use Telegram/Line/Kakao/Hangouts, or suggest it to them. They are all closed source, but at least is the lesser evil?
thw0rted 6y ago
I've lived in Germany for years and I do feel like, if we're going to stereotype people by nationality, they're one of the most privacy-sensitive groups you'll find. This is the country where, by law, if somebody picks up a (land-line) phone in the house, any other phone currently in use has to shut off. I'm not saying you can definitely convince that friend to get off WA / FB, but it's worth a shot. (I don't know what to replace it with -- I mostly use Hangouts but it really feels like it's falling apart.)

grumple 6y ago

You guys do have emails though, why isn’t that used instead?

HeavyStorm 6y ago

It's hard for most of to world remember that there isn't just US, UK and Europe in this globe...

john_minsk 6y ago

Just use something else....

kolla 6y ago

I hardly know anyone who uses Whatsapp, people mostly use messenger in swe, nor, fin, den.

comeonseriously 6y ago

Assign everyone an IP V6, there's plenty. Then treat that as our internet phone number. Define a chat protocol that contains the very basics and everyone has to support that. Want to send a chat, you have their IP V6. Exchange using QR code. No server necessary for the basics. If a text fails sending device can keep trying or just give up. This takes chat away from any single service.

the_french 6y ago
This approach ignores all the aspects that made whatsapp / chat services popular in the first place. A short list: - Contact Discovery - Group chats - History / Log - Shared message order - Communication beyond text (emojis / reactions / inline images) - Ability to receive messages while offline - No need for technical skills These aren't trivial features, they are prerequisites for any replacement, decentralized or otherwise. Just because we as developers like / tolerate things like IRC doesn't mean the rest of the world will accept it.
- ozborn 6y ago
  Everything you list could be supported at the client level with a decentralized IP6 level protocol without a need for a centralized server middleman.
  - etherealG 6y ago
    Sounds great! Let me know when you’ve built it so I can try it out :)
MayeulC 6y ago
Unfortunately, IPv6 addresses have to be assigned by someone, and they typically change when moving around/changing provider. And you have to go trough the firewall... I prefer something you can generate yourself, like encryption keys. That's the approach taken by yggdrasil (and cjdns before): generate an encryption key, map the public part to an IP address (there's almost enough bits in v6). Plus, it can easily be end-to-end encrypted. Another plus is that you can generate as many as desired. As for the protocol, Matrix is experimenting a bit with going p2p. https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/ https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/

baliex 6y ago

"Be the change you want to see in the world" -- I'm gonna have a go at switching as many people away as possible; friends, family, co-workers. It's all about critical mass so every step in that direction is a step toward your school and local community communications being on some alternative platform instead.

mslack616 6y ago

Not only Europe and UK, LATAM is also pretty much governed by WA. I remember one time I had a visit of some folks from Canada, they were very surprised that we used it as our main chat/communication app. When I asked why, they said "we don't hear from it (referring to WA) that much, we all just use iMessage" I guess in their context/community most people own iPhones.

etherealG 6y ago
Exactly, the usage of iOS in some countries is high, and that’s where WhatsApp didn’t win as the most used chat.

sebow 6y ago

Be the change you want to see. I mean sure it requires to be a little charismatic and usually to be an inspirational figure, but i quit facebook & messenger in 2015 and since then a lot of my friends(whom i never talked on the matter) made the switch. Simple explanations like: "it's made to be a drug" and some of the negatives (like privacy here) switch more people than you think. And i totally disagree on making these corporations utilities: you're just giving them access to more possible critical infrastructure they can datamine, which is what it's being done on billions of people through these 'apps'.

dusted 6y ago

I disagree, they're NOT public utilities, they're private companies that people chose to use (why is beyond me). What could be considered instead, is building public utilities as a community.

corty 6y ago
Almost all public utilities have started as private companies of some kind. Broadcast, telecom and railway companies are the most recent examples. They started as private companies but then, due to limited spectrum, unification pressure, needing to include everyone including remote places and wasteful duplication got transformed into publically owned or at least publically licensed and regulated utilities (depending on which utility and country you are looking at). So, while they are not yet public utilities, they should be turned into such.

sireat 6y ago

I can cut out WhatsApp from professional use no problem. There is no way to cut WhatsApp from casual/family use in Europe. Schools, kindergartens, mechanics, contractors, plumbers everyone uses it. The problem is that WhatsApp is the easiest method to share photos on mobile. If you do not have WhatsApp your plumber can not send you a picture of pipes they fixed. How do you work around that? Other parents are using WhatsApp for organizing out of school activities. Again, there is no way to go full Stallman here...

antpls 6y ago

That's not true, I live in West Europe and I never used Whatsapp in my life. There are always alternatives to get informed here.

TheRealSteel 6y ago

Yep, in Australia I had basically never used WhatsApp. It's barely a thing. (However, Facebook Messenger dominates there, so it's not as if the privacy situation is any better, Facebook Messenger is just a better app/website to use). Here in the UK I am literally required to be on WhatsApp to live in the building I currently live in. I have no choice in this matter. It's just the default messaging service for everyone. If you join any kind of club? WhatsApp group. If you want to talk to someone about renting a room or apartment? WhatsApp chat. Live with housemates? WhatsApp group. Plus the whole fact that if I deleted facebook, I would cut off contact with my friends and family (I can't expect like 25 people all to switch messaging services just for me). I would lose access to my thousand-dollar Oculus VR headset (I hate them so much for buying and linking facebook and Oculus, and hope a better competing standalone headset comes out). And don't forget, you can't use an Oculus Quest with a blank facebook account you made just for that - they actually check that you're really using the account and force you to verify with photos and ID. They are the absolute epitome of evil. Facebook, in many ways, but particularly in regard to Oculus, is a moustache-twirlingly, cartoonishly evil organization. Could I just never buy an Oculus? Hopefully one day. But when not just your hobbies, but also your study and skillset and career prospects are right in that industry, you swallow your pride and make a damn facebook account. I was also required to be in facebook groups for university classes back when I was a student. I HAD to be on facebook to get a degree. And for an amateur theatre group I joined. Not to mention everything going on with misinformation about elections, vaccines, etcetera etcetera. Some of this stuff is now moving to Discord, which is probably better than anything owned by facebook, but being better than facebook is a damn low bar, and Discord is still ultimately a for-profit corporation that would sell your soul if it made them a dollar. This "just stop using it" attitude you always get on Hacker News and reddit about facebook and their various messaging platforms baffles me. Do you people not have lives? Jobs? Friends? Family? If you (in or out of a pandemic lockdown) want to do just about anything outside your house, or a whole bunch of things inside it, you need to use Facebook services. It sucks and I've love to stop supporting them but it's not like most of us have a realistic choice.

FalconSensei 6y ago
> This "just stop using it" attitude you always get on Hacker News and reddit about facebook and their various messaging platforms baffles me. Unfortunately, seems that for many people on HN, HN is almost all their online social interaction, + tech people on signal/mastodon. Some don't seem to understand the concept of having family and friends who are not tech-savy (or even hate tech). Or understand the concept of social capital.

pjmlp 6y ago

Also in Africa, most business live out from WhatsApp. You will find WhatsApp contacts for any kind of communication, ordering a taxi, food, whatever. Move out of WhatsApp, and it is going to be quite boring out in the Savannah.

pier25 6y ago

Same in Mexico and (AFAIK) most LATAM countries. If I need anything to be delivered to the house I need to use Whatsapp (gas, water, food, etc).

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

>how much of a monopoly WhatsApp has in Europe and the UK Everything you said applies to the Indian subcontinent, SE Asia and South America which form the bulk of the WhatsApp user base as well but with lesser or no scrutiny whatsoever when compared to EU/UK.

aeyes 6y ago

Not just Europe + UK, LATAM is all WhatsApp. Net neutrality not existing helps WhatsApp and other services here, one cell provider for example offers 1 year unlimited WhatsApp+Facebook including voice and video calls for a total (not monthly!) cost of 3USD on a prepaid chip. So you can't call, you can't write SMS, you can't use the internet but you can use WhatsApp for almost no cost. If you are on a budget this is a no brainer, for comparison - 5GB full internet access on the same chip is around 5$. How are you going to break such a monopoly supported by providers? At this point it is something all providers do so if one starts offering it all other providers have a competitive advantage because everybody is already using WhatsApp. I am not sure if Facebook pays these providers, my guess is not - they are pushed into this by their competitors. Net neutrality is very important to not let this happen. Similar deals exist for other popular services: Instagram, Youtube, TikTok, Spotify, Snapchat, Twitter, Netflix to name a few

seniorivn 6y ago

no they don't need to be treated like anything, they are completely new thing, so if you think that their dominant market position is an issue, they can be forced to implement public api(open standart), therefore unlocking their userbase and allowing infinite competition

hyko 6y ago

faced with the option of accepting or being cut off from their local community. It’s a deal!

niutech 6y ago

Why not make a local WhatsApp<->Signal bridge using Matrix (https://matrix.org/bridges/ https://matrix.org/bridges/) and a disposable SIM card, and just use Signal app on your phone?

etherealG 6y ago
Is that easy to do? I thought WhatsApp didn’t allow api access.

hp77 6y ago

Same case here in India, Sucks to have these apps despite knowing what they are doing just because your School or College groups are on these platforms. I tried educating my fellow mates about this but seems unlikely that it will have any effect.

randomsearch 6y ago

Just an obvious point - you don’t have to “change”. You can install both and use signal as much as you can. This costs you almost nothing, maybe just a little app switching. Not much to pay for a better world.