Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

developers.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 152 posts

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#41

Post by ants_everywhere »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #8
Razengan wrote: post #5

There's something really appalling that I discovered lately and I can't believe there isn't enough uproar about it. Every attempt to talk about this gets ignored or buried (maybe by people who want this ""feature"" to be kept quiet) so I will take every opportunity on existing discussions about Facebook to bring it up: Facebook (and TikTok) store tracking data on iOS that the user CANNOT SEE and CANNOT DELETE: • It s…

This is nuts. There should be a grand total of zero files on my personal computing device that I cannot remove (no matter the consequences).

This seems fundamentally at odds with Apple's philosophy that they're providing you a rented appliance they control and which you have temporary access to.

I'm sure you can remove most and/or all Mac OS files, but they're increasingly using trusted computing and even designing their own chips to increase the control they have over the devices (and correspondingly limit user control).

They sell this as a security feature these days, but the appliance model predates that and security is kind of just along for the ride.

I'm glad to see that people feel strongly that they should have control over the files on their system. I'd like to see that help move us toward users having full control over their computers.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#42

Post by layer8 »

brink wrote: post #2

Why do all Meta websites intentionally break the back button? It makes me irrationally angry every time I visit facebook or instagram for how disrespectful it is, it's like it springs a trap where I'm not allowed to leave in the browser tab I arrived in.

> It makes me irrationally angry

That’s pretty much the purpose of Facebook? ;)

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#43

Post by madeofpalk »

nottorp wrote: post #40
crtasm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal would have to change how they work for that, at present it shares your profile name after you've initiated a chat using the "username" - very confusing choice of wording.

What do you mean? You can set a nickname but they'll send your phone number to everyone you chat with? What's the point of nicknames then?

https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/

> Usernames simply allow you to initiate a connection on Signal without sharing your phone number

> Starting soon, your phone number will no longer be visible to people you chat with on Signal, unless they have it in their phone’s contacts. You will also be able to configure a new privacy setting to limit who can find you by your phone number on Signal. And, you’ll now be able to create an optional username that you can share with the people you want to connect with on Signal.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#44

Post by mdasen »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #25

If I a EU citizen (wink wink) and want to communicate with my family member living in usa, will this let me or not let me?

If you reside within the EEA, yes. However, given the "wink wink", the answer might be no.

Meta is requiring that people reside within the EEA, not just are someone who is an EU citizen. They're requiring integrating services to give them the IP addresses of users and for the integrating service to confirm that you're within the EEA at least once in any 60 day period. If Meta thinks you're violating that as a user, they'll cut you off from the integration. If they think the integrating service is just violating it, they'll cut off the integrating service.

It looks like Meta might be requiring as much identifying information about you as they can get so it will probably be relatively easy for Meta to figure out who is cheating.

But if you're not trying to cheat, then yes you'd be able to message US WhatsApp users from a non-WhatsApp account in the EU.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#45

Post by kolmogorov »

pmontra wrote: post #34
PandaBear123 wrote: post #18

> 7.5.1. Partner User Location. Any Partner Users that Partner Enlists or provides access to the Interoperable Messaging Services must be located and remain in the EEA. Without limiting Section 11 (Warranties), Partner represents and warrants that it will only (i) Enlist and (ii) enable access to the Interoperable Messaging Services by Partner Users that Partner independently validates are located in the European Eco…

So what happens when a EU citizens go on vacation in the US? No more sharing messages between platforms until they go back home?

this reads as if they can for 60 consecutive days and on day 61 they'd be disconnected from interoperable messaging

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#47

Post by tensor »

If only the DMA also required that users that are not E2E encrypted be displayed as such. As a user, it's important to know when your chat is actually secure. Competition should not be at the expense of security.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#48

Post by concinds »

jraph wrote: post #36
PandaBear123 wrote: post #18

> 7.5.1. Partner User Location. Any Partner Users that Partner Enlists or provides access to the Interoperable Messaging Services must be located and remain in the EEA. Without limiting Section 11 (Warranties), Partner represents and warrants that it will only (i) Enlist and (ii) enable access to the Interoperable Messaging Services by Partner Users that Partner independently validates are located in the European Eco…

And that they are reluctantly complying in bad faith in the most hostile way they found. Is this going to fly? Where do these 60 days come from for instance? How is it any useful and who is going to want to implement such interoperability under such terms? This reads like a lot of words to say Fuck You Europe to me. Well, feelings are mutual, at least we are on the same page, them and me.

You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; it sounds like full compliance to me, not "bad faith" compliance.

Messaging-interoperability is the one aspect of the DMA I don't support. These apps are free to download; and if you care about security (and use Signal) you'll want to avoid cross-service messaging anyway.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#49

Post by nottorp »

madeofpalk wrote: post #43
nottorp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? You can set a nickname but they'll send your phone number to everyone you chat with? What's the point of nicknames then?

https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/ > Usernames simply allow you to initiate a connection on Signal without sharing your phone number > Starting soon, your phone number will no longer be visible to people you chat with on Signal, unless they have it in their phone’s contacts. You will also be able to configure a new privacy setting to limit who can find you by your phone number on Signal. And, you…

> unless they have it in their phone’s contacts

Lol. Why should they be allowed to associate my phone with my signal handle even then. If i want them to know I'll tell them.

> a new privacy setting to limit who can find you by your phone number on Signal

Double lol. Limit is not disable.

How about an option to "do not give my phone number to anyone, no matter what reason to pass it around you make up this week"?

And the obvious next step: do not get my phone number period. But that has been discussed before.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#50

Post by shafyy »

sebtron wrote: post #33

So any messaging app that wants to implement Whatsapp interoperability has to apply for it, pray to get their blessing and then sign an NDA. It is probably a positive change for end users, but far far away from the "open up your protocol" I was hoping for.

I was also hoping to just be able to build my own messaging app and use it to chat with people who have WhatsApp. I guess this is a first step, and better than nothing. Let's hope the DMA keeps evolving and also closing loop holes.
Post reply on HN