New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

Duplicate?!?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30799567" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30799567</a>

This is almost too good to actually go through. Protocol transparency, that is to say forcing companies to open up their APIs would be one of the simplest and effective ways to break platform effects and walled gardens.<p>It shouldn&#x27;t just be limited to messaging. An internet where everyone can built a client against Facebook&#x27;s API, or Youtube or what have you and users get actual choice and control about how they consume those services would be a big leap forward.

I miss the days when I could fire up Pidgin (or Gaim when I started using it) and instantly connect to every IM service I ever needed. Hopefully this is a step back towards that.

Just force monopolistic&#x2F;abusive&#x2F;anti-competitive companies to expose API&#x27;s ; it&#x27;s not a stretch; they did it for banks (psd2) and it&#x27;s <i>great</i> for consumers and companies alike. Do it for everything; open systems make the world better. And they can still be monetized; it&#x27;s not like forcing everyone to open source everything.<p>Edit: more subtle choice of words to indicate what I meant

For those wondering what exactly it means:<p>&gt; (fa) allow end users, business users, providers and potential providers of on line social networking services access to and interoperability with the same industry-standard service features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any social networking services; minimum interoperability requirements shall be in accordance with the relevant Union legislation or the industry standard, where applicable, by providing open standards, open protocols, including Application Programming Interface;

This annoys me. Rather than robbing Moxie of his vision and forcing Meta to break their business model, why do governments not just lead by example?<p>Start using Matrix, we all know that the signup process could be easier (among many other things), throw some money and devs at the project with that specific goal. Start offering services over Matrix. Public money, public code. The whole world benefits.

Why did we as consumers accept this?<p>I remember back when MSN&#x2F;Windows Live Messenger used to be one of the most popular options out there. Even though I used Ubuntu, I could still chat with my friends through the Pidgin messenger. This was all possible through the XMPP interface, which still exists by the way.<p>It&#x27;s not just that these new messaging platforms are adding no extra value, they are creating worse experiences, and we&#x27;re buying into it. You now have to install half a dozen messaging apps just to keep up (WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, etc.) . And now we&#x27;re suddenly talking about reinventing the wheel.

Is this an indirect attack on the encryption... seems to be.

Yes! Like another comment mentioned I&#x27;d love a return of pidgin.<p>Further, the law should specificy that the protocol allows E2EE, and we have traction.

Would it also force Facebook to open up its Events section, so events become available to the outside world?

This is a step in the right direction. I&#x27;m pretty certain that they will make their open APIs a pain in the ass to work with so that nobody actually uses it but they still comply with the law.<p>So, I think further revisions of this law will somehow need to take this into account.

It&#x27;s hard to be optimistic about this. Regulators, lawmakers and courts are working with very blunt instruments and making up for it by being gentle.<p>Whether or not they succeed at improving choice and reducing centralised power over comms is up to dumb luck, mostly.

This would basically kill WhatsApp on iOS. Which is fine by me.

Step 1: Your encrypted chat service used by activists must work with other platforms by law.<p>Step 2: So... the encryption your application uses doesn&#x27;t work well with other platforms.<p>Step 3: Everyone must use this one kind of encryption for interoperability with our tracking ser... I mean other platforms.<p>Step 4. Hey, look at all the stuff these activists are talking about.<p>Step 5. Gulag for the activists

The most interesting part of the law is that users will be able to choose their own browser.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2022&#x2F;3&#x2F;24&#x2F;22994234&#x2F;eu-antitrust-legislation-dma-digital-markets-act-details" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2022&#x2F;3&#x2F;24&#x2F;22994234&#x2F;eu-antitrust-leg...</a>

IMVHO communication protocols of anything public MUST be open, peering MUST be allowed as a general policy. It&#x27;s not a matter of scale: communications exists to communicate, not to create walled gardens.

Would this also require Signal to provide an open client API for messaging by 3rd party clients?

This is going to make it difficult for small startups to compete.

Ah, a new tack in the effort to break encryption.

This would be great for consumers but not so great for Apple and Facebook. They want people into their locked down walled garden.

Yeah, and trade certain security for certain freedom?

So no more security , innovation and progress for EU? Everything including encryption usage and data transfer will be decide by old fat bureaucrats. Forgot to add a pop up window about transferring message to different country and your own 1 billion eurofiats to them.