4 ms·

You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; it sounds like full compliance to me, not "bad faith" compliance. Messaging-interoperability is the one

You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; it sounds like full compliance to me, not "bad faith" compliance. Messaging-interoperability is the one aspect of the DMA I don't support. These apps are free to download; and if you care about security (and use Signal) you'll want to avoid cross-service messaging anyway.

southerntofu 3y ago
EU law only applies in the EU, but an actor who doesn't respect EU law outside of the EU may be refused business in the EU. I agree the precedents are not strong to propose an outright ban (eg. Coca Cola murdering trade unionists and forest defenders in South America) but it would perfectly make sense on paper.
- catlikesshrimp 3y ago
  Digital services are global. Regulation can be different from physical good regulation. Heck, in the US even taxes are global Edit: For US citizens
concinds 3y ago
Actually I forgot about iMessage. It’s the only service where forced interoperability makes sense (because you can’t “just download an app”, you’re locked out of the service unless you buy an Apple device), and yet it was excluded. Hopefully the EU changes the law so it applies to iMessage.
- justoreply 3y ago
  in Europe very few people are using iMessage, most of them are using Whatsapp
  - olivermuty 3y ago
    Southern europe yes, further north its almost no WA and a ton of iMessage
- anticensor 3y ago
  iMessage already interoperates, with SMS and MMS.
sabellito 3y ago
Why don't you support it? There are government services that use whatsapp in my country. This argument "just don't use it" is very tired. Interoperability can be achieved with E2E encryption.
- methuselah_in 3y ago
  Xmpp
- concinds 3y ago
  > Interoperability can be achieved with E2E encryption. On paper yes. But I wouldn't trust it. https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-interoperability-messaging/ https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-interoperability-messag... > There will also be the option, Brouwer says, for third-party developers to add a proxy between their apps and WhatsApp’s server. This, he says, could give developers more “flexibility” and remove the need for them to use WhatsApp’s client-server protocols, but it also “increases the potential attack vectors.” -- > There are government services that use whatsapp in my country. This argument "just don't use it" is very tired. I'm saying I wouldn't trust or use interoperability. If something/someone is on WhatsApp I'd do it through WhatsApp. Doesn't mean I can't use Signal with all those who use that.
afavour 3y ago
> These apps are free to download Yes but you aren’t truly free to choose which app you download. You have to use the one being used by the people you want to message. That is of strong benefit to incumbents.
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  Has there been meaningful innovation in messaging? I had free AIM on $3 T-Zones in 2006. So I see no downsides to just forcing interoperability.
  - myaccountonhn 3y ago
    Many add a bunch of bloat that I simply do not want. It'd be nice to have a chat app that only do chat.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Meta and Apple are paying for far more bandwidth than what AIM was moving around back then. Very high quality videos, audio, pictures, and gifs not to mention files and group video calls.
    - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
      Their will. I'm perfectly fine receiving full quality media as files, I don't need meta to reformat my media to reduce their bandwidth bill and train their model, they could redirect me to the original file if I am using another messaging app.
- concinds 3y ago
  > you aren’t truly free to choose which app you download. You have to use the one Singular? You'd just use whichever app a given person is on (everyone here has 3+ chat apps installed). Wouldn't network effects only kick in when group chats are involved?
  - AAAAaccountAAAA 3y ago
cesarb 3y ago
> You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; Even then, that consecutive 60-day limit sounds bizarre. For instance, someone who has dual citizenship could legitimately switch between an EU and a non-EU country every single month. Why shouldn't that person have access to these "Interoperable Messaging Services" when in the EU?
- sealeck 3y ago
  If you switch every month then you will have been present in the EU within any 60-day window?
  - htrp 3y ago
    Literally lawyering up the implementation
    - sealeck 3y ago
      This is definitely their tactic, and it may work because they can be incredibly obstreperous at every turn and make the commission fight every small detail tooth and nail up to the highest court.
      - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
        I don't support meta and apple's approach, but while something is done about it: I suppose you can use a (paid) vpn with servers in Europe, because meta shouldn't have access to your location by any mean beside the internet connection. Just a bandaid
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

southerntofu 3y ago

EU law only applies in the EU, but an actor who doesn't respect EU law outside of the EU may be refused business in the EU. I agree the precedents are not strong to propose an outright ban (eg. Coca Cola murdering trade unionists and forest defenders in South America) but it would perfectly make sense on paper.

catlikesshrimp 3y ago
Digital services are global. Regulation can be different from physical good regulation. Heck, in the US even taxes are global Edit: For US citizens

concinds 3y ago

Actually I forgot about iMessage. It’s the only service where forced interoperability makes sense (because you can’t “just download an app”, you’re locked out of the service unless you buy an Apple device), and yet it was excluded. Hopefully the EU changes the law so it applies to iMessage.

justoreply 3y ago
in Europe very few people are using iMessage, most of them are using Whatsapp
- olivermuty 3y ago
  Southern europe yes, further north its almost no WA and a ton of iMessage
anticensor 3y ago
iMessage already interoperates, with SMS and MMS.

sabellito 3y ago

Why don't you support it? There are government services that use whatsapp in my country. This argument "just don't use it" is very tired. Interoperability can be achieved with E2E encryption.

methuselah_in 3y ago
Xmpp
concinds 3y ago
> Interoperability can be achieved with E2E encryption. On paper yes. But I wouldn't trust it. https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-interoperability-messaging/ https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-interoperability-messag... > There will also be the option, Brouwer says, for third-party developers to add a proxy between their apps and WhatsApp’s server. This, he says, could give developers more “flexibility” and remove the need for them to use WhatsApp’s client-server protocols, but it also “increases the potential attack vectors.” -- > There are government services that use whatsapp in my country. This argument "just don't use it" is very tired. I'm saying I wouldn't trust or use interoperability. If something/someone is on WhatsApp I'd do it through WhatsApp. Doesn't mean I can't use Signal with all those who use that.

afavour 3y ago

> These apps are free to download Yes but you aren’t truly free to choose which app you download. You have to use the one being used by the people you want to message. That is of strong benefit to incumbents.

doctorpangloss 3y ago
Has there been meaningful innovation in messaging? I had free AIM on $3 T-Zones in 2006. So I see no downsides to just forcing interoperability.
- myaccountonhn 3y ago
  Many add a bunch of bloat that I simply do not want. It'd be nice to have a chat app that only do chat.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Meta and Apple are paying for far more bandwidth than what AIM was moving around back then. Very high quality videos, audio, pictures, and gifs not to mention files and group video calls.
  - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
    Their will. I'm perfectly fine receiving full quality media as files, I don't need meta to reformat my media to reduce their bandwidth bill and train their model, they could redirect me to the original file if I am using another messaging app.
concinds 3y ago
> you aren’t truly free to choose which app you download. You have to use the one Singular? You'd just use whichever app a given person is on (everyone here has 3+ chat apps installed). Wouldn't network effects only kick in when group chats are involved?
- AAAAaccountAAAA 3y ago

cesarb 3y ago

> You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; Even then, that consecutive 60-day limit sounds bizarre. For instance, someone who has dual citizenship could legitimately switch between an EU and a non-EU country every single month. Why shouldn't that person have access to these "Interoperable Messaging Services" when in the EU?

sealeck 3y ago
If you switch every month then you will have been present in the EU within any 60-day window?
- htrp 3y ago
  Literally lawyering up the implementation
  - sealeck 3y ago
    This is definitely their tactic, and it may work because they can be incredibly obstreperous at every turn and make the commission fight every small detail tooth and nail up to the highest court.
    - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
      I don't support meta and apple's approach, but while something is done about it: I suppose you can use a (paid) vpn with servers in Europe, because meta shouldn't have access to your location by any mean beside the internet connection. Just a bandaid

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]