3 ms·

Correct! This is just Meta doing malicious compliance by being "compatible" with companies with no actual product, three-months old waitlist, no actual users wi

Correct! This is just Meta doing malicious compliance by being "compatible" with companies with no actual product, three-months old waitlist, no actual users within the EU, and nobody to push back on WhatsApp's definition of interoperability. Then when some real product tries to actually become interoperable down-the-line, Meta's gonna be like "well these two did it just fine according to this backwards implementation, why can't you?" They're both b2b products that are gonna try to find their first users by pitching the idea that you can use their products to spam WhatsApp users. Haiket doesn't even try to hide its connection to Meta. All you have to do is to go to their website, click on press, and see in the only press release they've ever posted that its CEO holds patents in use by Meta. Here, let me save you a click: https://haiket.com/press/release-nov11.html https://haiket.com/press/release-nov11.html > Alex holds over 10 patents in voice and communication technologies, assigned to and used by Google and Facebook.

kubb 9mo ago
I see a second round of legislation might be needed. They'll get it right eventually.
- input_sh 9mo ago
  Eh, there's no specific definition of interoperability written in the Digital Markets Act. It's decided on a case-by-case basis and I'm sure that the legislators in charge of this case will push back on this piss-poor implementation in like a year from now. By the time this back-and-forth reaches its end, these two will find some shady b2b customers and are gonna be touted as "successful European startups".
- Bratmon 9mo ago
  They never got cookie popups right. What makes you so confident?
  - jorvi 9mo ago
    They got cookie pop-ups right, current rules: - the default choice needs to be "strictly necessary cookies - with other less prominent buttons for "allow all" and "deny all" - a site is not allowed to force you to have the press a bunch of buttons or select a bunch of things to deny most/all cookies The problem lies in enforcement. Unless you are a huge player, there is almost nil chance you're gonna get fined. I think about the only thing missing is that they should have RFC'd a standard akin to Do Not Track, except this would have communicated to sites if your default is "strictly necessary", "allow all" or"deny all". With it being set to "strictly necessary" by default.
    - palata 9mo ago
      > The problem lies in enforcement. Unless you are a huge player, there is almost nil chance you're gonna get fined. I am curious: why is that difficult? Define the fine as a percentage of the revenue of the company, have users report links, and pay someone to check the link and send the fine. Sounds like easy money... I mean it's very profitable to pay people to check parking lots and fine drivers who don't follow the regulations. This should be even more profitable?
      - xmcp123 9mo ago
        If I am business outside Europe, why would I send Europe what my revenue is?
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        I don't know — why do businesses outside Europe care about GDPR compliance at all? They could just track Europeans all they want to, without any cookie banners.
        xmcp123 9mo ago
        Tbh most do. It makes sense only for big companies with a multinational presence. But admitting you are subject to the laws of a country/entity is one thing, sending them your books (when your company is not based there) is kind of on a different level
  - kubb 9mo ago
    Optimistic. They've got sideloading done, browser and search choice done, ad transparency done, more choice for payments done, many dark patterns banned. The gears are turning slowly, but they're doing really useful work.
    - wolvoleo 9mo ago
      Also, there's a lot of hate from US commenters but don't forget that the US was trying to do the same when it still had a sane administration. The DoJ was trying to stop the Google search deal, trying to split them up etc. Big tech is too big and this is a problem everywhere.
lurk2 9mo ago
> Haiket doesn't even try to hide its connection to Meta. All you have to do is to go to their website, click on press, and see in the only press release they've ever posted that its CEO holds patents in use by Meta. […] Alex holds over 10 patents in voice and communication technologies, assigned to and used by Google and Facebook. How does this imply he has any connection to Meta? Companies license patents all the time.
- input_sh 9mo ago
  Okay, what about three sentences above that one? > Before Haiket, Alex founded a number of technology start-ups and helped develop innovative voice solutions for Facebook and Google. At the very least, I think it's safe to say he has some connections within Meta that he utilised for this purpose. He's definitely not a complete outsider whose startup (with no actual product) just happened to be picked by Meta.
  - huflungdung 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - lurk2 9mo ago
    > what about three sentences above that one? My bad. I searched for “Meta” instead of “Facebook.” Quite a few other red flags in that press release. > Haiket is launching the Beta trial from today, with a pipeline of future innovation for early adopters, including a pioneering silencing technology that will allow users to speak privately in public, with voice communication that only your device can hear.
    - scns 9mo ago
      >> including a pioneering silencing technology that will allow users to speak privately in public, with voice communication that only your device can hear. Does anyone else think this sounds beyond ridiculous?
    - londons_explore 9mo ago

kubb 9mo ago

I see a second round of legislation might be needed. They'll get it right eventually.

input_sh 9mo ago
Eh, there's no specific definition of interoperability written in the Digital Markets Act. It's decided on a case-by-case basis and I'm sure that the legislators in charge of this case will push back on this piss-poor implementation in like a year from now. By the time this back-and-forth reaches its end, these two will find some shady b2b customers and are gonna be touted as "successful European startups".
Bratmon 9mo ago
They never got cookie popups right. What makes you so confident?
- jorvi 9mo ago
  They got cookie pop-ups right, current rules: - the default choice needs to be "strictly necessary cookies - with other less prominent buttons for "allow all" and "deny all" - a site is not allowed to force you to have the press a bunch of buttons or select a bunch of things to deny most/all cookies The problem lies in enforcement. Unless you are a huge player, there is almost nil chance you're gonna get fined. I think about the only thing missing is that they should have RFC'd a standard akin to Do Not Track, except this would have communicated to sites if your default is "strictly necessary", "allow all" or"deny all". With it being set to "strictly necessary" by default.
  - palata 9mo ago
    > The problem lies in enforcement. Unless you are a huge player, there is almost nil chance you're gonna get fined. I am curious: why is that difficult? Define the fine as a percentage of the revenue of the company, have users report links, and pay someone to check the link and send the fine. Sounds like easy money... I mean it's very profitable to pay people to check parking lots and fine drivers who don't follow the regulations. This should be even more profitable?
    - xmcp123 9mo ago
      If I am business outside Europe, why would I send Europe what my revenue is?
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        I don't know — why do businesses outside Europe care about GDPR compliance at all? They could just track Europeans all they want to, without any cookie banners.
        xmcp123 9mo ago
        Tbh most do. It makes sense only for big companies with a multinational presence. But admitting you are subject to the laws of a country/entity is one thing, sending them your books (when your company is not based there) is kind of on a different level
- kubb 9mo ago
  Optimistic. They've got sideloading done, browser and search choice done, ad transparency done, more choice for payments done, many dark patterns banned. The gears are turning slowly, but they're doing really useful work.
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    Also, there's a lot of hate from US commenters but don't forget that the US was trying to do the same when it still had a sane administration. The DoJ was trying to stop the Google search deal, trying to split them up etc. Big tech is too big and this is a problem everywhere.

lurk2 9mo ago

> Haiket doesn't even try to hide its connection to Meta. All you have to do is to go to their website, click on press, and see in the only press release they've ever posted that its CEO holds patents in use by Meta. […] Alex holds over 10 patents in voice and communication technologies, assigned to and used by Google and Facebook. How does this imply he has any connection to Meta? Companies license patents all the time.

input_sh 9mo ago
Okay, what about three sentences above that one? > Before Haiket, Alex founded a number of technology start-ups and helped develop innovative voice solutions for Facebook and Google. At the very least, I think it's safe to say he has some connections within Meta that he utilised for this purpose. He's definitely not a complete outsider whose startup (with no actual product) just happened to be picked by Meta.
- huflungdung 9mo ago
  [dead]
- lurk2 9mo ago
  > what about three sentences above that one? My bad. I searched for “Meta” instead of “Facebook.” Quite a few other red flags in that press release. > Haiket is launching the Beta trial from today, with a pipeline of future innovation for early adopters, including a pioneering silencing technology that will allow users to speak privately in public, with voice communication that only your device can hear.
  - scns 9mo ago
    >> including a pioneering silencing technology that will allow users to speak privately in public, with voice communication that only your device can hear. Does anyone else think this sounds beyond ridiculous?
  - londons_explore 9mo ago