2 ms·

I agree. How do you draw the line. Does Slack have to integrate with Tinder or Whatsapp? And then there is the security issue of end-to-end encryption and the l

I agree. How do you draw the line. Does Slack have to integrate with Tinder or Whatsapp? And then there is the security issue of end-to-end encryption and the lowest common denominator. Basically the most insecure messaging app will be the attack vector. And there is no chance to have some form of security through obscurity if you are say a targeted journalist.

mschuster91 5y ago
> Does Slack have to integrate with Tinder or Whatsapp? Federation and bridge services are nothing new. Facebook's messenger used to allow XMPP clients years ago. Now that at least the big platforms actually are mandated to provide open access for interoperability, maybe we can see some innovation in that field again. The interesting thing will be stuff like feeds - how do you solve cross-platform activity feeds without creating massive privacy liabilities?
Shish2k 5y ago
Reading the actual document, I don’t see anything about “interoperability” implying “federation” - it’s more like “third-party clients must be allowed to use the same APIs as first-party clients”
- ISL 5y ago
  A third-party client that aggregates content from Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Mastodon, strips all of the ads, and orders posts in the order desired by the user will, in aggregate, be a game-changer. Not being able to split-test reliably for all users will also have a huge impact for the walled gardens.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tomjen3 5y ago
  That would be fantastic. The world needs pidgin 2.0 where all the services are aggregated and serve the user.
- Vinnl 5y ago
  This makes so much more sense. I've been wondering how this should work in practice for ages (but was still too lazy to look it up), and you just summarised it in one clear sentence. Thanks!
Bayart 5y ago
>And then there is the security issue of end-to-end encryption and the lowest common denominator. There's nothing preventing companies from setting up non-encrypted bridges to satisfy the interoperability requirements and just say "we can't encrypt there, it's not on us".
shantara 5y ago
I think the point is to have a documented open API that would allow for development of third party clients, but any app A is not under obligation of integrating with any other app B.
- cmelbye 5y ago
  Which actually just serves to make spam, bot, and abuse problems even worse.
lm28469 5y ago
Wouldn't it be for things like Instagram/Whatsapp/Facebook which are all owned by the same company ? It specifically states "a company's" so I guess that's what it is
kranke155 5y ago
what? making text messaging interoperable won't make this some sort of security nightmare.

mschuster91 5y ago

> Does Slack have to integrate with Tinder or Whatsapp? Federation and bridge services are nothing new. Facebook's messenger used to allow XMPP clients years ago. Now that at least the big platforms actually are mandated to provide open access for interoperability, maybe we can see some innovation in that field again. The interesting thing will be stuff like feeds - how do you solve cross-platform activity feeds without creating massive privacy liabilities?

Shish2k 5y ago

Reading the actual document, I don’t see anything about “interoperability” implying “federation” - it’s more like “third-party clients must be allowed to use the same APIs as first-party clients”

ISL 5y ago
A third-party client that aggregates content from Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Mastodon, strips all of the ads, and orders posts in the order desired by the user will, in aggregate, be a game-changer. Not being able to split-test reliably for all users will also have a huge impact for the walled gardens.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 5y ago
That would be fantastic. The world needs pidgin 2.0 where all the services are aggregated and serve the user.
Vinnl 5y ago
This makes so much more sense. I've been wondering how this should work in practice for ages (but was still too lazy to look it up), and you just summarised it in one clear sentence. Thanks!

Bayart 5y ago

>And then there is the security issue of end-to-end encryption and the lowest common denominator. There's nothing preventing companies from setting up non-encrypted bridges to satisfy the interoperability requirements and just say "we can't encrypt there, it's not on us".

shantara 5y ago

I think the point is to have a documented open API that would allow for development of third party clients, but any app A is not under obligation of integrating with any other app B.

cmelbye 5y ago
Which actually just serves to make spam, bot, and abuse problems even worse.

lm28469 5y ago

Wouldn't it be for things like Instagram/Whatsapp/Facebook which are all owned by the same company ? It specifically states "a company's" so I guess that's what it is

kranke155 5y ago

what? making text messaging interoperable won't make this some sort of security nightmare.