Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sbacic 1664 days ago
> A company’s messaging or social media app is interoperable, to prevent users feeling forced to use one or the other because that’s where their friends are

Does this mean what I think it means? That we can finally say goodbye to half a dozen different chat apps and just have one (like Pidgin in the good old days)?
2 comments
gmueckl 1664 days ago
Pidgin likely won't have a big comeback. The messaging service providers can still tie them to their own proprietary clients. They would only be forced to forward messages between their servers as I understand it.

I'm not sure which messenger platforms even need to follow this requirement (e.g. is Signal big enough to have to open up?). Also, there's a few fun open questions like how to uphold end to end encryption or how to exclude spammy messaging services from the network.

link
officeplant 1664 days ago
>how to uphold end to end encryption

Considering how first world governments are fighting against encryption I assume this is just a benefit to them.

link
wdb 1663 days ago
Ain't this a similar problem as the end-to-end encryption between NATO parties e.g. NATO navy ships communicating which each other?
link
Abishek_Muthian 1663 days ago
It's likely that it means messaging apps from the same brand should be interoperable i.e. Messenger message should reach WhatsApp and vice-versa but it needn't reach Signal, Telegram.

Fun fact, I had an interoperable network between leading chat apps Messenger <-> Telegram <-> Viber <-> LINE back in 2017 on top of which we ran a privacy focused dating platform[1]. It was built using bot APIs of these platforms.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeuL8_Qinhs

link
gmueckl 1663 days ago
That's not what the draft says. If a provider or service has been identified as a gatekeeper per the criteria laid out in the draft, they need to make the service interoperable with services of other "business users" upon request (that is, other companies). So Signal and Telegram could approach Facebook and ask them for access to some federation-like API to Messenger and WhatsApp and Facebook would be legally required to provide that.

In fact, thinking about the exact wording, there might potentially be a loophole that would allow Messenger and WhatsApp to stay incompatible because they're different services by the same provider. But IANAL.

link
Abishek_Muthian 1663 days ago
If that's the case then I stand corrected, Thanks. It just sounds too good to be true, But if consumer protection is the goal then it's what makes most sense.

Still I'm skeptical that this draft would see it's light as a law as it is, iMessage is one of the main pillars of Apple ecosystem; Many in U.S. have told me that they must use iPhone as everyone is on iMessage there and I feel Apple will throw everything it has to prevent it being interoperable with WhatsApp in EU which has significant user-base there.

link