WhatsApp "interoperability"
from mattreb@feddit.it to privacy@lemmy.ml on 28 Nov 21:28
https://feddit.it/post/24213355

Apparently Europe finally got Whatsapp to enable 3rd party chats making it easier to switch to more privacy friendly alternatives article However the only other app that currently works with it is “BirdyChat”??

Have anybody found any news about when serious alternatives will be integrated?

#privacy

threaded - newest

kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Nov 22:04 next collapse

Any link of this BirdyChat?

kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Nov 22:25 next collapse

Ok sorry, it was in the article:

https://www.birdy.chat/

And also this:

https://haiket.com/

PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz on 28 Nov 22:26 collapse

It seems like a work chat app

www.birdy.chat

kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 28 Nov 22:28 collapse

It’s definitely something I’ll use, since work chat is all I do on WhatsApp currently.

I only need to be sure it isn’t some scam, although the alternative is Meta, so… yeah…

jeena@piefed.jeena.net on 28 Nov 22:53 next collapse

I’m already using a matrix bridge for it because I can’t get some cousins to move natively to Matrix. But if that would make it more stable it would be appreciated.

DSN9@lemmy.ml on 29 Nov 03:58 collapse

I can ditch what’s app and use matrix with what’s app 😅👀???

bartleby1@lemmy.ml on 29 Nov 05:26 collapse

!beeper@lemmy.ml

Corridor8031@lemmy.ml on 28 Nov 22:54 next collapse

i cant even find a lot about it, but it seems grim and not like this will ever work with any usefull chat app.

~~apperently meta gets to pick it, and it is not a public api. ~~ (this is not true lol)

essentially the corrupt eu politicians once again failed to represent the people. Just throw them all out already.

themurphy@lemmy.ml on 28 Nov 23:33 next collapse

apperently meta gets to pick it, and it is not a public api.

No they dont, and it’s a public modified Matrix-protocol. Why would you lie about that?

The problem is that WhatsApp can demand third parties to meet very high standards, making it impossible for independent actors to gain access to this.

You need a pretty well run machinery to live up to the standard, but if they do, WhatApps can legally not deny access.

If they do, it’s in violation of the DMA, which gives you a 10% of all global income in fees.

These has been used against Meta and Google before, and there’s no reason to believe they wont do it again. They actually live up to it.

Corridor8031@lemmy.ml on 28 Nov 23:39 next collapse

No they dont, and it’s a public modified Matrix-protocol. Why would you lie about that?

Sry i read it on reddit lol…

but so will there be a matrix client i can use soon? or not

because i also read that signal wont do it

themurphy@lemmy.ml on 29 Nov 12:01 collapse

Signal wont do it because they cant use their own protocol. You still have to use WhatsApps, which makes it flawed.

I also hope for good clients, but maybe the rules will change further before there’s any real use case for it. Maybe it’s too expensive compared to making your own?

bartleby1@lemmy.ml on 29 Nov 05:30 next collapse

WhatsApp was originally built on, and still is, a forked version of XMPP. It is nothing like the matrix protocol.

themurphy@lemmy.ml on 29 Nov 12:02 collapse

It’s not, but they made a WhatsApp API for the DMA. There’s a Matrix bridge to WhatsApp.

onlinepersona@programming.dev on 29 Nov 06:23 collapse

Share the documentation then if it’s public.

themurphy@lemmy.ml on 29 Nov 12:04 collapse

…facebook.com/messaging-interoperability

Again, I dont think you can access it unless you follow the rules.

I guess it’s not true public, but you can if you meet the requirements.

bartleby1@lemmy.ml on 29 Nov 05:31 collapse

You’re correct, it is not a public API. In fact, just to see the specs, you need to be either an organization (or an indie developer) registered in the EU and have to sign a massive NDA just to get the documentation!

ryannathans@aussie.zone on 29 Nov 00:09 next collapse

Pretty sure signal refused to integrate

bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de on 29 Nov 02:22 collapse

Signal should be subject to the same law. So I hope all it takes is someone making a bridge that forces Signal to open up as well.

pupbiru@aussie.zone on 29 Nov 03:32 next collapse

this part of the DMA only applies to “gatekeepers”, which are very large providers. the biggest barriers to being a gateway are (imo) turnover of > €7.5bn, 45m active monthly users in the EU

sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today on 29 Nov 03:34 next collapse

I don’t want to chat with people on WhatsApp with Signal. I don’t want Meta linking my metadata. Interoperability will only keep people from switching to better platforms

mikedd@lemmy.world on 29 Nov 09:13 next collapse

Seconded.

BlueBockser@programming.dev on 29 Nov 11:02 next collapse

While I agree with your sentiment, no interoperability obviously hasn’t made people switch to better platforms either. The only difference is that without interoperability, I’m forced to still use WhatsApp to communicate with those unwilling / unable to switch.

sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today on 29 Nov 15:10 collapse

I would disagree. I’ve gotten quite a few people in my life to use Signal

sleen@lemmy.zip on 29 Nov 11:25 collapse

Yes this “solution” is just a bandaid to the problem which is capitalism. All this is going to do is make these corpos look like they are doing something good - but in the end, all of this is just a blur.

RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz on 29 Nov 10:25 collapse

State mandated XMPP. I didn’t know I’m cool with authoritarianism until now!

Undertaker@feddit.org on 29 Nov 00:54 collapse

As your are talking about privacy friendly alternatives, the answer is none, because they would immediately lose their privacy friendlyness