yeah, i don't think this was thought out, or at least i haven't read anything on this subject. how does the draft text deal with cryptography?
Something like this can't really make end to end encryption interoperable. There will be no encryption at the transitions between systems. Clients would have to use something that can work over arbitrary textual channels like OTR or PGP.
HTTPS works encrypted between multiple clients, servers and proxies without issues (mostly). There is nothing impossible about encrypted communication. It's just that all servers and clients need to work together to achieve this.
I pray that this, especially the interoperability requirements comes through not only with teeth, but with claws and a ravenous hunger. I believe one of the key things that allow innovation to foster is beating down the rentseekers,i.e. enabling adversarial interoperability https://www.eff.org/fr/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interop... and making it easy for individuals to tinker and innovate without needing capital…
There are serious fines attached ( up to 10% of global turnover, 20% for repeat offenders) so it will have plenty of teeth.
“up to” isn’t serious
“at least” would be serious
But that would require for politicians to actually want to do something to benefit the people, not just themselves and their bribers/lobbyists.
> Parliament also succeeded in convincing the Council of interoperability requirements for messaging services, meaning outfits such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms. For group chats, this requirement will be rolled out over a period of four years. This would be great. I remember using pidgin back in the day and it was really convenient…
What about Signal?
Moxie is strongly against it. Although the app and protocols are open, he doesn't tolerate third party clients on Signal official servers and he doesn't want federation. Even though I disagree, he has some good arguments.
And if WhatsApp has to interoperate, why not Signal?
One reason the EU missed out on the internet is our unlimited willingness to be regulated. And we keep piling more and more bureaucracy on top of it. This only cements the power of US big tech like Google and Facebook. And it sets the stage for the next big applications of the web all being build outside the EU as well. Here in Germany, everyone is afraid to start a web startup. And if they do, they spend endless amo…
One reason the EU missed out on the internet… Here in Germany, everyone is afraid to start a web startup The EU does actually have a variety of "internet" companies – and that includes Germany! There are certainly less of them; regulation could be one of the things that affects that, but it seems way more likely to be a wildly different environment for funding. Investors are more conservative and far less likely to t…
Reading this is so entertaining. "It's not the regulation that has depressed the EU startup scene, it is depressed because we in the EU are too smart."
One reason the EU missed out on the internet is our unlimited willingness to be regulated. And we keep piling more and more bureaucracy on top of it. This only cements the power of US big tech like Google and Facebook. And it sets the stage for the next big applications of the web all being build outside the EU as well. Here in Germany, everyone is afraid to start a web startup. And if they do, they spend endless amo…
So you like that your code is protected by intellectual property so that you can make money off it and noone can just take it and use it whoit permission? But you dont like that your users data is protected by GDPR, so that you cant take it without permission? Thats unnessesary regulation holding back business? Does not sound like it has anything to do with regulation, it sounds like you want the fovernment to give y…
There's no contradiction.
Intellectual property protection is opt-in. It requires the individual to enforce his rights before a court in the relevant jurisdiction. The government only facilitates registration and adjudication. Courts don't force individuals into global protection schemes against claimant's own will.
Whatever the expected merits were, GDPR's existence as a policy has been of little more use than a protectionist beating stick in service of the EU. It gave the EU the power to dictate how websites are to be designed. Non-Europeans with business interests inside the EU had no say or representation in the matter. Governments shouldn't claim universal jurisdiction over the Internet, whatever their reasoning for such claims might be.
> You use Zoom, Teams, Facebook or whatever you like, I'll use my Jitsi or home grown WebRTC solution. Fairness can be that simple. that's naive. the problem is that we moved away as an industry from that model for 2 specific reasons: - widely used standards take decades to change just slightly, or never (see SMS, email) - interoperability means either lowest common denominator or a huge cost to keep things interoper…
> that's naive. Please attack my arguments, don't make aspersions as to my disposition. > the problem is that we moved away as an industry Please don't try to define the narrative from a parochial viewpoint. No. we didn't. Some of us did. And those few have arguably done a great deal of damage to "the industry". > widely used standards take decades to change just slightly, or never (see SMS, email) It's arguable that…
I like the idealism of your arguments, but tech idealism doesn’t matter without users. And the majority of users have repeatedly chosen proprietary UX innovations over things like standards and interoperability. And many of these things are just an underlying standard with some changes/additions sprinkled on top, but those changes are differentiating to the product. Slack, Zoom, Gmail, etc. Some of their success is network-driven, but their unique work play no small part. And other companies tried different ideas and failed, and we’re lucky that Atlassian didn’t somehow get bad Hipchat-specific additions onto the IRC spec to albatross us all forever. On the web people chose non-standards overwhelmingly enough to basically kill the standards body (W3C) and push us into the land of “Whatever’s Worked on by Google” (WHATWG in essence). Until governments start funding competitive efforts (to relieve monetary pressure, which comes with its own problems) into projects pushing for your telos principles, profit (as an imperfect indicator of people’s choices) will continue to be the North Star for technology.
One reason the EU missed out on the internet… Here in Germany, everyone is afraid to start a web startup The EU does actually have a variety of "internet" companies – and that includes Germany! There are certainly less of them; regulation could be one of the things that affects that, but it seems way more likely to be a wildly different environment for funding. Investors are more conservative and far less likely to t…
Reading this is so entertaining. "It's not the regulation that has depressed the EU startup scene, it is depressed because we in the EU are too smart."
Well, that’s obviously not what I said - indeed, the point was that European investors can often be conservative to the point of stupidity and throwing around dumb money can be the smart move.
> Parliament also succeeded in convincing the Council of interoperability requirements for messaging services, meaning outfits such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms. For group chats, this requirement will be rolled out over a period of four years. This would be great. I remember using pidgin back in the day and it was really convenient…
What about Signal? Moxie is strongly against it. Although the app and protocols are open, he doesn't tolerate third party clients on Signal official servers and he doesn't want federation. Even though I disagree, he has some good arguments. And if WhatsApp has to interoperate, why not Signal?
To quote the original article : "platforms with a market capitalization of €75 billion or turnover in the European Economic Area equal to or above €7.5 billion"
I'm not sure what the current market cap for Signal is, but I'm fairly sure they don't have a turnover of 7+bn in the EU.
Apple literally begged for this hammer to fall, ignoring calls for openness for 15 years and openly mocking efforts to get them to play ball (like the recent Dutch case, to which they responded by amending rules on dating apps , blatantly ignoring the spirit of the ruling). I expect they employ enough smart people that they prepared for this moment of reckoning despite the hubris of their leadership.
> ignoring calls for openness for 15 years I very much want this to happen now. However I would not have wanted this 15 years ago when the platform was a baby and little was known on how to move it forward. Last thing you wanted at that time was layers of regulation and laws that would hinder the speed of development. 15 years is probably too long and this could have happened 5-10 years ago.
I suspect you already know that 44 years ago when Apple's system was a baby, it was what, today, you would call "open hardware." See the last two pages of the user manual for the schematics. [1]
At that time, Apple's system needed to attract developers, so instead of a walled garden, the company did what they could to encourage interoperability.
I fail to see any relevant innovation happen in the current fragmentation of giant silos.
Well, it brought up to here what we have. Even though there are many people complaining, what we currently have, even if fragmented, is a great collection of apps that are free and allow us to send text/images/videos/rich links to anyone using the app on Earth in a split second. Not saying that it couldn't happen in other setting, but innovation definitely did happen in the current fragmentation of silos.