4 ms·
That's a poor option to regulate from. They could just as easily have required messaging apps to make their protocols open, allowing for competition in the app
by taxikabs 2y ago
That's a poor option to regulate from. They could just as easily have required messaging apps to make their protocols open, allowing for competition in the app space messaging over them and not facing lock in.
- aurareturn 2y agoSo what's the financial incentive for companies to develop & maintain open standard messaging protocols? For example, I'm sure it costs Meta a pretty penny to facilitate messages with central servers, store historical messages, and pay engineers to maintain and develop new features. If they have then be forced to open up Messenger for free, they might not have started Messenger in the first place. Also, SMS is the open protocol so we have at least one interoperable standard for people to choose from.
- Apocryphon 2y agoFacebook users needed to be able to communicate with each other. That’s a business requirement no regulation can deter.
- Repulsion9513 2y agoSo... Meta might not choose to develop a messenger? Or maybe they would choose to use someone else's system (since again it's open and interoperable)? I'm sorry, where's the issue here?