4 ms·

The problem with WhatsApp is not that users are locked in. You can install as many chat apps as you want. WhatsApp has no exclusivity over its users. The probl

by mantap 6y ago

The problem with WhatsApp is not that users are locked in. You can install as many chat apps as you want. WhatsApp has no exclusivity over its users. The problem with WhatsApp is that it only has one alternative. In terms of chat apps that use the signal protocol there's two: WhatsApp and Signal. And Signal is not quite as good as WhatsApp. It's certainly much improved but it's not there yet.

samhh 6y ago
The vast majority of users don't care about the underlying encryption. That's a problem, in a sense, but the core problem here is the network effect. That it's the natural behaviour of people doesn't make it not a problem.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  It makes a difference that there is not an obvious comparable alternative. The network effect works both ways: if key people in my network are convinced to switch, other people will follow.
  - samhh 6y ago
    When I think of networks of friends and family I don't think that's the case. You'll need something approaching 50%+1.
kitkat_new 6y ago
There are a few alternatives, actually. There is also Element (based on Matrix), and XMPP which use encryption based on the Signal Protocol. Both are mentioned in the article. And yes: users are locked in, because your whole social network is expected to be on WhatsApp. 1) you need to convince others to find you on alternatives (every single person even people you just met, you have to explain what&why; also: workplace, clubs, etc. or leave them). You certainly aren't going to convince everyone 2) you will miss out on a lot: people are being invited into groups, but they can't invite you anymore to just join; people create groups on the messenger they use most often, because it is more convenient for them. In summary, if you have a active social life and grow/grew up with it you will have a lot of friction if you really want to get rid of it. That is what I would call locked in.
- amelius 6y ago
  By the way, this whole problem of network-effect based lock-in was already solved for telephony in the old days. Why do we have to solve it again?
  - kiwidrew 6y ago
    Because regulation is bad and therefore we have been left at the mercy of the invisible hand of the free market. Even this recent spate of "deplatforming" events can't seem to sway (a certain subset of) the tech community towards the idea that some amount of regulation can be a good thing.
    - amelius 6y ago
      You mean regulation as in net neutrality?

by mantap 6y ago

samhh 6y ago

The vast majority of users don't care about the underlying encryption. That's a problem, in a sense, but the core problem here is the network effect. That it's the natural behaviour of people doesn't make it not a problem.

throwaway2245 6y ago
It makes a difference that there is not an obvious comparable alternative. The network effect works both ways: if key people in my network are convinced to switch, other people will follow.
- samhh 6y ago
  When I think of networks of friends and family I don't think that's the case. You'll need something approaching 50%+1.

kitkat_new 6y ago

There are a few alternatives, actually. There is also Element (based on Matrix), and XMPP which use encryption based on the Signal Protocol. Both are mentioned in the article. And yes: users are locked in, because your whole social network is expected to be on WhatsApp. 1) you need to convince others to find you on alternatives (every single person even people you just met, you have to explain what&why; also: workplace, clubs, etc. or leave them). You certainly aren't going to convince everyone 2) you will miss out on a lot: people are being invited into groups, but they can't invite you anymore to just join; people create groups on the messenger they use most often, because it is more convenient for them. In summary, if you have a active social life and grow/grew up with it you will have a lot of friction if you really want to get rid of it. That is what I would call locked in.

amelius 6y ago
By the way, this whole problem of network-effect based lock-in was already solved for telephony in the old days. Why do we have to solve it again?
- kiwidrew 6y ago
  Because regulation is bad and therefore we have been left at the mercy of the invisible hand of the free market. Even this recent spate of "deplatforming" events can't seem to sway (a certain subset of) the tech community towards the idea that some amount of regulation can be a good thing.
  - amelius 6y ago
    You mean regulation as in net neutrality?