this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
12 points (92.9% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
3 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

What do our European friends have to say about the interpolarity of messaging apps?

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

while this is an attempt to disrupt monopolies of Whatsapp and such, I'm quite wary of it. if I'll use another messaging service to message someone on Whatsapp, Meta will most likely still collect all the metadata about our conversation, and I bet that's going to stop Signal, my IM of choice, from implementing it.

and besides, it's going to make it more difficult to make people move away from Whatsapp, since "you can already use [the IM you use] to message me".
I'd rather wish it would force the big players to open up their APIs, so people could create alternative clients. I'd love a less bloated and better designed app to contact people on Whatsapp, with all the community and status update bullshit ripped out.

[–] terulo@lemmy.eco.br 2 points 1 year ago

In fact, this is a possibility, as Meta collects user data from other applications

[–] Mysteriarch@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you referring to the Digital Markets Act that would force some large tech players to allow interoperability?

I think it's a great step forward, although I think it's only in 2024 that those changes will actually happen.

[–] terulo@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, that's what it's about

[–] randomaccount43543@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] TheFerrango@lemmy.basedcount.com 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think they mean “interoperability“.

EDIT split comment to comment reply and post reply

[–] terulo@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 1 year ago

That's what it's about

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

We'll have to see how it develops, but so far I'm absolutely in favor. I hope this opens up some of the walled gardens and enables real competition.

[–] TheFerrango@lemmy.basedcount.com -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nice to have, but ultimately unenforceable and irritating when half baked.

You’d end up with either a basic standard everyone supports and then extends in their own proprietary ways, limiting interoperability to SMS like content (at which point just use SMS, they’re included in every phone plan), or with multiple apps built on top of the same protocol (which IMHO would be better).

That said, don’t we already have the protocol in the form of XMPP? I remember people trying to make XMPP compatibility a big selling point for Skype almost a decade ago, and cross-chat compatibility between Skype, WL Messenger and one of the infinite Google chat services. No idea how that ended up.

Perhaps something like E2EE XMPP, if that is a thing?

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Afaik encryption, group chats, video calls, and so on are actually required by this law if the messengers support them for their own users. So they can't just offer a text only one-to-one chat and call it a day.

[–] Peon@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Sadly, SMS is not included in every phone plan.

[–] albert180@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

There is no reason to be limited to SMS like content. It's not like Standards like Matrix or RCS exist which support almost all features that most Instant Messengers do