EU lawmakers pass strict new rules affecting big U.S. tech(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
EU lawmakers pass strict new rules affecting big U.S. tech
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-23/eu-lawmakers-pass-strict-new-rules-affecting-big-u-s-tech
80 comments
Apple could ignore doing that to iMessage simce nobody uses it in Europe, Whatsapp, telegram, signal and facebook messenger have about 95% of the messeging market in europe. Add Line, Kakaotalk and wechat and you got 90%< of world wide mobile communications excluding the US.
> Apple could ignore doing that to iMessage simce nobody uses it in Europe
I use it.
I use it.
Are these the same lawmakers that want to ban encryption and backdoor every secure messaging app?
I wonder what it'll take to get companies to just pull out of Europe entirely rather than comply with increasingly onerous demands.
You really think they'd pull out and allow someone willing to play by a couple of rules to grow to be big enough to threaten the rest of their space? Giving up China is one thing. Yeah, it has a billion people but it's also a giant pain in the ass given the sheer amount of meddling that country's government involves itself with. But Europe? None of these companies can maintain the sort of quasi-monopolies they have without Europe.
It'd be interesting to see. At the moment Europe is largely dominated by the US tech industry (bar a few notable exceptions, like Spotify). One of them leaving would open a nice big gap for new/existing EU alternatives to compete in.
My 2c - big companies pulling out of Europe would be a welcome opportunity and not a crisis for eu
In PL we have/had alternative for every big Co. Even Apple alternative that got killed by Siemens. And it's 40M country. I would love some space and capital here.
Me too - let's figure it out and make it happen!
These are the main points of the draft law.
Lawmakers voted to approve measures in the draft Digital Markets Act that could mean:
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
A ban on behavioral targeting of ads to minors
Fines of as much as 20% of a company’s global annual sales for breaches for the law
Companies identified as “gatekeepers” and therefore set to be accountable under the DMA include Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Booking.com, and could later hit online marketplaces Zalando and Alibaba.
-
Lawmakers voted to approve measures in the draft Digital Markets Act that could mean:
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
A ban on behavioral targeting of ads to minors
Fines of as much as 20% of a company’s global annual sales for breaches for the law
Companies identified as “gatekeepers” and therefore set to be accountable under the DMA include Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Booking.com, and could later hit online marketplaces Zalando and Alibaba.
-
> 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)?
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)?
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.
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.
>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.
Considering how first world governments are fighting against encryption I assume this is just a benefit to them.
Ain't this a similar problem as the end-to-end encryption between NATO parties e.g. NATO navy ships communicating which each other?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
Am I wrong or is this revolutionary?
Am I wrong or is this revolutionary?
I agree. How do you draw the line. Does Slack have to integrate with Tinder or Whatsapp? And then there is the security issue of end-to-end encryption and the lowest common denominator. Basically the most insecure messaging app will be the attack vector. And there is no chance to have some form of security through obscurity if you are say a targeted journalist.
Reading the actual document, I don’t see anything about “interoperability” implying “federation” - it’s more like “third-party clients must be allowed to use the same APIs as first-party clients”
A third-party client that aggregates content from Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Mastodon, strips all of the ads, and orders posts in the order desired by the user will, in aggregate, be a game-changer.
Not being able to split-test reliably for all users will also have a huge impact for the walled gardens.
Not being able to split-test reliably for all users will also have a huge impact for the walled gardens.
[deleted]
That would be fantastic. The world needs pidgin 2.0 where all the services are aggregated and serve the user.
This makes so much more sense. I've been wondering how this should work in practice for ages (but was still too lazy to look it up), and you just summarised it in one clear sentence. Thanks!
> Does Slack have to integrate with Tinder or Whatsapp?
Federation and bridge services are nothing new. Facebook's messenger used to allow XMPP clients years ago.
Now that at least the big platforms actually are mandated to provide open access for interoperability, maybe we can see some innovation in that field again.
The interesting thing will be stuff like feeds - how do you solve cross-platform activity feeds without creating massive privacy liabilities?
Federation and bridge services are nothing new. Facebook's messenger used to allow XMPP clients years ago.
Now that at least the big platforms actually are mandated to provide open access for interoperability, maybe we can see some innovation in that field again.
The interesting thing will be stuff like feeds - how do you solve cross-platform activity feeds without creating massive privacy liabilities?
Wouldn't it be for things like Instagram/Whatsapp/Facebook which are all owned by the same company ? It specifically states "a company's" so I guess that's what it is
>And then there is the security issue of end-to-end encryption and the lowest common denominator.
There's nothing preventing companies from setting up non-encrypted bridges to satisfy the interoperability requirements and just say "we can't encrypt there, it's not on us".
There's nothing preventing companies from setting up non-encrypted bridges to satisfy the interoperability requirements and just say "we can't encrypt there, it's not on us".
what? making text messaging interoperable won't make this some sort of security nightmare.
Well, it would be if there's actual enforcement. But if GDPR is anything to go by, it'll just be words on a page.
Nice! Thanks for this. Now I can turn my feeling into a reasoned argument. :)
Don’t forget to explore the data before coming to a conclusion.
given that the site linked showed a number of cases of enforcement - how?
The Irish DPC is notorious for dragging its feet and sabotage, as if it were an arm of the Irish Development Agency whispering to multinationals "come set up your offices in Ireland, we will shelter you from GDPR".
Latest case in point:
https://noyb.eu/en/irish-dpc-removes-noyb-gdpr-procedure-cri...
Latest case in point:
https://noyb.eu/en/irish-dpc-removes-noyb-gdpr-procedure-cri...
Because they're very few and for pocket change that barely amounts to a wrist slap.
Until you've been in the position of filing a GDPR complaint yourself it's easy to imagine that GDPR enforcement is effective. That couldn't be further from the truth. Compliance officers (yes the people you're supposed to complain to) will do everything in their power to invalidate your claim and will then drag your complaint through enough Kafkaesque bureaucracy to make you throw your hands up in defeat.
I can only speak from my own experience but go ahead and filter by my own nation's (Denmark) successful fines of businesses. That list is paltry and full of fines that each amount to less than two months pay in most cases of a single employee.
Until you've been in the position of filing a GDPR complaint yourself it's easy to imagine that GDPR enforcement is effective. That couldn't be further from the truth. Compliance officers (yes the people you're supposed to complain to) will do everything in their power to invalidate your claim and will then drag your complaint through enough Kafkaesque bureaucracy to make you throw your hands up in defeat.
I can only speak from my own experience but go ahead and filter by my own nation's (Denmark) successful fines of businesses. That list is paltry and full of fines that each amount to less than two months pay in most cases of a single employee.
In the case of Denmark more than half of those were governmental, which generally have less skin in the GDPR game, and out of those left only two of them made me think wow I bet those guys have enough money that these fines won't be more than an irritant and one of them was a non-profit.
Aside from all that if I was one of the people handing out fines my thinking would be like this, first I would ramp up so start giving smaller fines, and then when people I was fining were not changing their behavior I would keep increasing the fines. If for example someone gave Arp Hansen Hotel Group A/S a significant percentage of its revenue as a fine the first time people would be up in arms and complain a lot, so then I give them a slap on the wrist of 147,800 euros - which in the average Dane's view would sound like a lot - and ramp up the next time to maybe 220000, then the next 400000 - and then if they keep on give them a million. At that point no matter what PR campaign is done to make them seem the victim it will be a hard sell, they were warned fined multiple small fines and never fixed up their act. Who can blame us?
At the same time I would also want to keep my view to what people were giving national and international bad actors in other countries, I would want my actions to look reasonable in relation to those.
Speaking of which I saw
Ireland: Fine against WhatsApp Ireland Ltd in the amount of EUR 225 million
The Irish DPA (DPC) has fined WhatsApp Ireland Ltd. EUR 225 million for breaches of the GDPR in relation to the provision of information and the transparency of that information to users and non-users of WhatsApp.
And
Luxembourg: Fine against Amazon Europe Core S.a r.l. in the amount of EUR 746,000,000 In its quarterly report, Amazon.com Inc. announced that the DPA from Luxembourg (CNPD) had fined Amazon Europe Core S.a r.l. EUR 746,000,000 for failing to process personal data in compliance with the GDPR.
These are also relative slaps on the wrist, but of course the problem for these companies with these fines is that just one fine might be a slap but 20 or so and you might start to get a welt on that wrist.
at any rate - I would not expect anyone to issue a fine of of 4% of annual global turnover – whichever is greater - the first two or three fines that are given out to any company - unless Facebook has some leak that shows them spelling out their plan to break the law and do what they want with EU citizen data because screw the EU!
>full of fines that each amount to less than two months pay in most cases of a single employee.
Aside from the municipalities / regions, I see two companies that had fines small enough to be possibly two months pay of a highly paid employee, the other ones sure maybe if we're talking at top management levels but that's sort of misleading. At any rate it's not two months of a janitor's wages - unless we're talking about the municipalities.
Aside from all that if I was one of the people handing out fines my thinking would be like this, first I would ramp up so start giving smaller fines, and then when people I was fining were not changing their behavior I would keep increasing the fines. If for example someone gave Arp Hansen Hotel Group A/S a significant percentage of its revenue as a fine the first time people would be up in arms and complain a lot, so then I give them a slap on the wrist of 147,800 euros - which in the average Dane's view would sound like a lot - and ramp up the next time to maybe 220000, then the next 400000 - and then if they keep on give them a million. At that point no matter what PR campaign is done to make them seem the victim it will be a hard sell, they were warned fined multiple small fines and never fixed up their act. Who can blame us?
At the same time I would also want to keep my view to what people were giving national and international bad actors in other countries, I would want my actions to look reasonable in relation to those.
Speaking of which I saw
Ireland: Fine against WhatsApp Ireland Ltd in the amount of EUR 225 million
The Irish DPA (DPC) has fined WhatsApp Ireland Ltd. EUR 225 million for breaches of the GDPR in relation to the provision of information and the transparency of that information to users and non-users of WhatsApp.
And
Luxembourg: Fine against Amazon Europe Core S.a r.l. in the amount of EUR 746,000,000 In its quarterly report, Amazon.com Inc. announced that the DPA from Luxembourg (CNPD) had fined Amazon Europe Core S.a r.l. EUR 746,000,000 for failing to process personal data in compliance with the GDPR.
These are also relative slaps on the wrist, but of course the problem for these companies with these fines is that just one fine might be a slap but 20 or so and you might start to get a welt on that wrist.
at any rate - I would not expect anyone to issue a fine of of 4% of annual global turnover – whichever is greater - the first two or three fines that are given out to any company - unless Facebook has some leak that shows them spelling out their plan to break the law and do what they want with EU citizen data because screw the EU!
>full of fines that each amount to less than two months pay in most cases of a single employee.
Aside from the municipalities / regions, I see two companies that had fines small enough to be possibly two months pay of a highly paid employee, the other ones sure maybe if we're talking at top management levels but that's sort of misleading. At any rate it's not two months of a janitor's wages - unless we're talking about the municipalities.
I got the same impression while skimming over a bunch of meagerly fines of a couple thousand euros. But then I saw the graphs https://www.enforcementtracker.com/?insights which might inspire most trust. Maybe DPAs are slowly learning and improving their process?
I know that I tried to file a complaint in Romania back in 2019 and it was a huge hassle to do, with a large form with all types of info I didn't have easy access too (like the onus was on me to provide company information, contact details, etc). Whereas when I checked out the complaint form this year it only included a few fields, that made sense.
I know that I tried to file a complaint in Romania back in 2019 and it was a huge hassle to do, with a large form with all types of info I didn't have easy access too (like the onus was on me to provide company information, contact details, etc). Whereas when I checked out the complaint form this year it only included a few fields, that made sense.
When the words on the page are "Minimum level of fines of 4% and up to 20% of total turnover " it might be time to start to listen.
And for systematic non-compliance “structural or behavioural remedies”.
And for systematic non-compliance “structural or behavioural remedies”.
Totally behind the interoperable thing, but where do you draw the line? Anything from dating apps to property buying apps have messaging in them.
I think the plan is to do it similar to anti-competition laws: if your market share is large enough and/or your company is significant to society then you'll have to comply. If you're small then you'll get a pass.
I am pretty sure this just means that messaging companies will need to provide a publicly accessible API. There won’t be any mandate to actually implement this interoperability beyond that, but of course someone could write an open source client that uses all these newly exposed APIs to make a unified chat app with Tinder, Slack, and WhatsApp all in one place. But the tech companies themselves aren’t being forced to work with each other, the ask from the tech company side is actually relatively small.
I would expect the opposite to be true: big companies might be forced to "try hard" to cooperate with each other, but have no obbligation to allow <random app developer> access to their internals in any way.
The rules apply to significant platforms based on a market cap threshold. And not just American ones, Booking.com is European (Dutch).
How they are going to deal with the practicalities of fighting spam remains to be seen.
How they are going to deal with the practicalities of fighting spam remains to be seen.
It only applies to "gatekeepers"
> Companies identified as “gatekeepers” and therefore set to be accountable under the DMA include Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Booking.com, and could later hit online marketplaces Zalando and Alibaba.
> Companies identified as “gatekeepers” and therefore set to be accountable under the DMA include Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Booking.com, and could later hit online marketplaces Zalando and Alibaba.
> 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.
The EU is doing the real work to make the metaverse happen.
The EU is doing the real work to make the metaverse happen.
> A ban on behavioral targeting of ads to minors
That's interesting - if it is harmful to minors, how it isn't when someone turns 18? I believe it should be banned across the board.
That's interesting - if it is harmful to minors, how it isn't when someone turns 18? I believe it should be banned across the board.
> if it is harmful to minors, how it isn't when someone turns 18?
Same as for alcohol or tobacco, at some point society assumes you're mature enough to make your own decisions. Obviously it varies from individual to individual but we had to chose a date and in most countries it's between 16 and 21.
Same as for alcohol or tobacco, at some point society assumes you're mature enough to make your own decisions. Obviously it varies from individual to individual but we had to chose a date and in most countries it's between 16 and 21.
Vague sweeping rules combined with gigantic fines smells like taxation by another name.
yeah cuz everything we did in past worked out so well
I don't get what this comment is trying to say.
I agree that at some point it does start to feel like the EU is just souring the grapes they failed to grow themselves.
Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? Trying to mandate interop is I'm sure a dream for the .0001% of users who've been clamoring to get back on Pidgin...
But any meaningful amount of their revenue being fined for not providing that is ludicrous to me. It's just not withholding that kind of value from end users.
I agree that at some point it does start to feel like the EU is just souring the grapes they failed to grow themselves.
Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see? Trying to mandate interop is I'm sure a dream for the .0001% of users who've been clamoring to get back on Pidgin...
But any meaningful amount of their revenue being fined for not providing that is ludicrous to me. It's just not withholding that kind of value from end users.
China banned your beloved grapes all together and I don't see you stopping trading with them.
Any country is free to tax or ban any business as much as they see fit, in the best interest if their citizen that elected them. I really don't see your point here, even if this was a taxing attempt.
EU people don't distrust government as much as US does.
Why do you feel you have a right to judge their values and policies?
We are talking about democracies here. Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money. If anything you should use this difference to monitor how much of your policies are shaped in the interest of lobbies vs citizens.
Any country is free to tax or ban any business as much as they see fit, in the best interest if their citizen that elected them. I really don't see your point here, even if this was a taxing attempt.
EU people don't distrust government as much as US does.
Why do you feel you have a right to judge their values and policies?
We are talking about democracies here. Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money. If anything you should use this difference to monitor how much of your policies are shaped in the interest of lobbies vs citizens.
What a bizarre comment, are you just upset that I said your region is not competitive in tech (it's not) and reaching for anything you can?
I mean let's start with the irrelevant anti-China ranting.. where did I say we should stop trading with Europe?! Did you just feel a need to shoehorn China into the conversation because they're the other major power in tech?
-
And then the weird commentary about why I feel I have a right to judge their policies...
You mean their policies as they affect American companies that dominate the space?
Forget that for a second even, as if I don't live in a country I can't have an opinion on their actions?
Like if you have something meaningful to say, try again, and maybe say something on topic.
I mean let's start with the irrelevant anti-China ranting.. where did I say we should stop trading with Europe?! Did you just feel a need to shoehorn China into the conversation because they're the other major power in tech?
-
And then the weird commentary about why I feel I have a right to judge their policies...
You mean their policies as they affect American companies that dominate the space?
Forget that for a second even, as if I don't live in a country I can't have an opinion on their actions?
Like if you have something meaningful to say, try again, and maybe say something on topic.
Ok. I thought I'd give you a chance, but I think you are just trolling at this point or having a bad day.
Yes, you can think whatever you want but I am not interested in listening to you .
Have a nice day!
At this point I feel like you must be projecting, so indeed, have a nice day.
And maybe learn more about the institutions you're talking about: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/transparen...
"Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money"
And maybe learn more about the institutions you're talking about: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/transparen...
"Specifically democracies where you cannot lobby with corporate money"
> Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see?
Because these user-hostile practices give the companies who employ them a competitive advantage, making it very difficult for better companies to compete.
Because these user-hostile practices give the companies who employ them a competitive advantage, making it very difficult for better companies to compete.
I'm refuting that outright.
Again, the vast majority of users will not take advantage of federation. If they had, Facebook wouldn't have been able to drop their XMPP support like it was nothing.
Despite the wants of the technical minority, it does not provide nearly as much value as these ultra specialized protocols do.
You see iPhone users declining to communicate with Android users over being forced to use the least common denominator.
They would rather not talk to someone than give up HQ pictures they'll look at for 5 seconds and forget.
Federation is a random stumbling block that at best will cement big players vs regulatory capture.
It's not going to make competition easier. Having an SMS to your competitor's iMessage is not going to make your iMessage competitor easier to launch.
-
And on a larger scale, the EU lost because they moved too slowly, acting like abusive practices is why Google ate search, Apple innovated themselves into their own kingdom, etc. is ridiculous.
Silicon Valley might slowly be losing its influence, and these companies do take actions that should be regulated (like targeted ads at minors) but Europe did not form its "Silicon Valley" fast enough. It fell behind in tech, and so now it stays behind in tech. The bad behavior is a sideshow compared to that.
Anti-competitive behavior isn't why they can't compete, trying to battle the resources and talent these companies with nowhere near equivalent footing is why they can't compete.
Again, the vast majority of users will not take advantage of federation. If they had, Facebook wouldn't have been able to drop their XMPP support like it was nothing.
Despite the wants of the technical minority, it does not provide nearly as much value as these ultra specialized protocols do.
You see iPhone users declining to communicate with Android users over being forced to use the least common denominator.
They would rather not talk to someone than give up HQ pictures they'll look at for 5 seconds and forget.
Federation is a random stumbling block that at best will cement big players vs regulatory capture.
It's not going to make competition easier. Having an SMS to your competitor's iMessage is not going to make your iMessage competitor easier to launch.
-
And on a larger scale, the EU lost because they moved too slowly, acting like abusive practices is why Google ate search, Apple innovated themselves into their own kingdom, etc. is ridiculous.
Silicon Valley might slowly be losing its influence, and these companies do take actions that should be regulated (like targeted ads at minors) but Europe did not form its "Silicon Valley" fast enough. It fell behind in tech, and so now it stays behind in tech. The bad behavior is a sideshow compared to that.
Anti-competitive behavior isn't why they can't compete, trying to battle the resources and talent these companies with nowhere near equivalent footing is why they can't compete.
Facebook can be so user-hostile precisely because competition in that sector is broken. When Facebook removed XMPP support, what did their users do? Nothing, because if they valued XMPP support, they also valued the conversations and friends they already had on Facebook. Network effects are definitely a thing.
You're applying some bizarre revisionist history here, XMPP being phased out affected a vast minority of users concerned about what Pidgin would now do.
This is the internet, go back and look at the reactions yourself.
And XMPP will not let you fight with Facebook's network effects.
Point to one major competitor to Facebook that was taking advantage of XMPP to reach even 10% of their billions of users in 2015?
XMPP is a bloated mess that would struggle to support half of what Messenger does, so you'd just get another iMessage vs SMS deal.
-
Honestly it's bizarre how people think large companies work. Like someone sat down and said "let's rewrite our chat backend to kick off Pidgin and the other smattering of clients that use XMPP!
Realistically XMPP was limiting, so they wrote a rich platform with MQTT, and added an API to interact with the new platform.
It took years for XMPP to catch up to half of what Messenger was doing.
Like these companies do enough bad stuff, can we stop inventing new things?
This is the internet, go back and look at the reactions yourself.
And XMPP will not let you fight with Facebook's network effects.
Point to one major competitor to Facebook that was taking advantage of XMPP to reach even 10% of their billions of users in 2015?
XMPP is a bloated mess that would struggle to support half of what Messenger does, so you'd just get another iMessage vs SMS deal.
-
Honestly it's bizarre how people think large companies work. Like someone sat down and said "let's rewrite our chat backend to kick off Pidgin and the other smattering of clients that use XMPP!
Realistically XMPP was limiting, so they wrote a rich platform with MQTT, and added an API to interact with the new platform.
It took years for XMPP to catch up to half of what Messenger was doing.
Like these companies do enough bad stuff, can we stop inventing new things?
> and added an API to interact with the new platform.
Except that there isn't an API for the new platform. Not one that allows interaction even by a client that is willing to code specifically to a proprietary API.
I don't think forcing companies to use a specific api (e.g. XMPP) is a good idea. But forcing them to expose functionality over a stable, documented, versioned API probably is.
Except that there isn't an API for the new platform. Not one that allows interaction even by a client that is willing to code specifically to a proprietary API.
I don't think forcing companies to use a specific api (e.g. XMPP) is a good idea. But forcing them to expose functionality over a stable, documented, versioned API probably is.
No, there is.
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/
Maybe it doesn't do what you want it to (personal use 3rd party client?), but again, we get back to exactly what the reality was back when XMPP was around...
Literally no one was ever able to even come close to leveraging XMPP to counter Facebook's network effect. And the vast majority of interactions happened by clicking the little message icon in a Facebook property.
Like even officially recommending companies do so, I would not have a problem with.
But to me it's simple, a punishment should be at least somewhat proportional to the damage + some punitive multiplier.
The damage of not having something like XMPP is nearly 0. You multiply it and it should still be nearly 0.
-
More than that, again, has a terrible smell of not actually about being the stated goal, but rather trying to ride the wave of an industry you fell behind in.
And to that I say, catch up instead. People come up with all sorts of excuses... China sure is competing. Even India is competing locally with outsiders.
Europe simply has not made comparable the investments or efforts to other parts of the world to throw in the towel and claim "big bad FAANG can never be out competed unless we kneecap them"
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/
Maybe it doesn't do what you want it to (personal use 3rd party client?), but again, we get back to exactly what the reality was back when XMPP was around...
Literally no one was ever able to even come close to leveraging XMPP to counter Facebook's network effect. And the vast majority of interactions happened by clicking the little message icon in a Facebook property.
Like even officially recommending companies do so, I would not have a problem with.
But to me it's simple, a punishment should be at least somewhat proportional to the damage + some punitive multiplier.
The damage of not having something like XMPP is nearly 0. You multiply it and it should still be nearly 0.
-
More than that, again, has a terrible smell of not actually about being the stated goal, but rather trying to ride the wave of an industry you fell behind in.
And to that I say, catch up instead. People come up with all sorts of excuses... China sure is competing. Even India is competing locally with outsiders.
Europe simply has not made comparable the investments or efforts to other parts of the world to throw in the towel and claim "big bad FAANG can never be out competed unless we kneecap them"
>Why not invest in homegrown alternatives that bring the changes they want to see?
I still want my government not to ignore abuses of foreign companies. I could make say a competitor to say Google or Apple messenger but to have a mobile application I need to first get approved by Apple and Google in their store, get access to same APIs. Then on top of that if I make a cool paid messenger app Apple and Google would tax me while their offer their shitty messengers for free because they abuse their dominance in a merket to compete in a different one.
You know free market theory has some axioms, some of them are about competition and free markets(no monopolies or duopolies/cartels or same economic agent competing in many different markets using the dominance from A to screw competition in B) -> free market works IF and ONLY IF there is actually a free market.
I still want my government not to ignore abuses of foreign companies. I could make say a competitor to say Google or Apple messenger but to have a mobile application I need to first get approved by Apple and Google in their store, get access to same APIs. Then on top of that if I make a cool paid messenger app Apple and Google would tax me while their offer their shitty messengers for free because they abuse their dominance in a merket to compete in a different one.
You know free market theory has some axioms, some of them are about competition and free markets(no monopolies or duopolies/cartels or same economic agent competing in many different markets using the dominance from A to screw competition in B) -> free market works IF and ONLY IF there is actually a free market.
If you actually read the comment chain above yours I go very in depth about why implying a lack of interop is an "abuse" is ludicrous.
Checking abuses, sure, go for it.
Arbitrarily setting up rules to collect a toll instead of just getting your car in the race, no.
American companies shouldn't allow it, the American government should exert pressure when possible to avoid it.
Even banning the services is better than that, at least there's some internal consistency to there. You don't get to start pissing in the pot because you don't have a plate.
Checking abuses, sure, go for it.
Arbitrarily setting up rules to collect a toll instead of just getting your car in the race, no.
American companies shouldn't allow it, the American government should exert pressure when possible to avoid it.
Even banning the services is better than that, at least there's some internal consistency to there. You don't get to start pissing in the pot because you don't have a plate.
EU works different then US and as a citizen I am happy.
For example I can use any ATM from any bank with super low fees, I can port my phone number to any network with 0 fees, when some garbage money exchange locations were printing ins super small fonts the fees our local politicians forced them to use giant fonts(I bet US marketing and bullshit entrepreneurs hate it when citizens using the laws force them to stop abusing them).
The same way I can move my phone number I should be able to change my IM client, if you are a US company that does not care about us poor EU citizens then feel free to go away.
Conclusion, if even in my local country we the citizens vote some people and demand of them to stop the giant tech to screw us over then you either respect it or go away, but you have your right to complain and I have the right to tell you that you are missing the point.
About competing, as I said before, I was thinking to start a open free music platform , where muysicians can sell their stuff without 0 parasites sucking the profits, but I can't do that because of Apple and Google that will always suck 30% from the creators and this profits will go to enrich some billionaires in countries that do not respect human rights, kill journalists and do other crimes. I can't implement my dream because of unfair competition.
The same way I can move my phone number I should be able to change my IM client, if you are a US company that does not care about us poor EU citizens then feel free to go away.
Conclusion, if even in my local country we the citizens vote some people and demand of them to stop the giant tech to screw us over then you either respect it or go away, but you have your right to complain and I have the right to tell you that you are missing the point.
About competing, as I said before, I was thinking to start a open free music platform , where muysicians can sell their stuff without 0 parasites sucking the profits, but I can't do that because of Apple and Google that will always suck 30% from the creators and this profits will go to enrich some billionaires in countries that do not respect human rights, kill journalists and do other crimes. I can't implement my dream because of unfair competition.
Most of this comment seems to be off-topic ranting because you're personally upset rather than have any meaningful point.
Let me address the only on-topic words mentioned:
> demand of them to stop the giant tech to screw us over
A lack of federation is not screwing people over. End of discussion full stop. If you want me to elaborate, feel free to read the hundreds of words above where I do, it's simply not screwing people over to not offer a largely unused and ignored interface to your product.
I don't care if countries want to put a stop to the _actual_ problems arising from tech, inventing new ones is a no go.
-
Also this is a game of chicken that's hilarious to me... your country can always block these tech companies. If it's just as simple as "respect it or go away", well obviously they're out of line already... so block them?
They don't get blocked because the citizens of these countries need them. If Europe had invested in tech as heavily as China they could block them too.
But they didn't... so now it's not quite as simple as "do as we say or go".
Let me address the only on-topic words mentioned:
> demand of them to stop the giant tech to screw us over
A lack of federation is not screwing people over. End of discussion full stop. If you want me to elaborate, feel free to read the hundreds of words above where I do, it's simply not screwing people over to not offer a largely unused and ignored interface to your product.
I don't care if countries want to put a stop to the _actual_ problems arising from tech, inventing new ones is a no go.
-
Also this is a game of chicken that's hilarious to me... your country can always block these tech companies. If it's just as simple as "respect it or go away", well obviously they're out of line already... so block them?
They don't get blocked because the citizens of these countries need them. If Europe had invested in tech as heavily as China they could block them too.
But they didn't... so now it's not quite as simple as "do as we say or go".
Even if giants and fanboys hate it, countries can force them to implement tech solutions, even US does it (I think they forced companies to add the Unsubscribe things to the emails , I bet you did not like citizens forcing the programers implement the Unsubscribe, it is such a big work where you could have spend it sending even more spam and more tracking)
But we will see if Apple, Google ,Facebook will leave EU or will try to screw us over but in a different way.
But we will see if Apple, Google ,Facebook will leave EU or will try to screw us over but in a different way.
I guess the off topic ranting just comes down to the fact the US owns the EU via tech and the military?
Well since we implemented the unsubscribe things are looking shaky for FAANG, but not to worry, such wonderfully open and free regimes such as Russia and China will be happy to take over co-parenting the EU with Germany.
Well since we implemented the unsubscribe things are looking shaky for FAANG, but not to worry, such wonderfully open and free regimes such as Russia and China will be happy to take over co-parenting the EU with Germany.
My point is that even if you don't like it, governments including US can force you to put shit in your code, so if some government will tell Microsoft to offer an open document format MS can say "No Thanks" and leave but it happened, MS did not leave. So again, we can force Apple to implement an API for messaging if they want to stay, you might not like it but it happened before and it is not like Apple is not sucking hard on US and China gov cocks already. At least this law is not like the ones that will affect their Store tax, that will hurt the Apple shareholders much more.
Note: this sounds like it's law now, but that's not the case.
I'm not an expert on EU legislation, but as I understand it, a commission (i.e. subset of the members) of the European Parliament (directly elected by EU citizens) voted on what they want their position to be when they, as representatives of the wider Parliament, negotiate with the European Council (leaders of the EU member state governments) on what the Digital Markets Act should end up looking like. Before that, however, the wider Parliament will also need to vote on that, which will happen half December.
(And as for how the other big EU institution, the European Commission (which functions like the government, and has a representative of each member country chosen by that country's government), is involved, I think they were the one to originally propose the Digital Markets Act?)
Source: general vague knowledge, and this tweet by a member of the negotiating commission: https://twitter.com/kimvsparrentak/status/146308360186886963... Corrections welcome.
I'm not an expert on EU legislation, but as I understand it, a commission (i.e. subset of the members) of the European Parliament (directly elected by EU citizens) voted on what they want their position to be when they, as representatives of the wider Parliament, negotiate with the European Council (leaders of the EU member state governments) on what the Digital Markets Act should end up looking like. Before that, however, the wider Parliament will also need to vote on that, which will happen half December.
(And as for how the other big EU institution, the European Commission (which functions like the government, and has a representative of each member country chosen by that country's government), is involved, I think they were the one to originally propose the Digital Markets Act?)
Source: general vague knowledge, and this tweet by a member of the negotiating commission: https://twitter.com/kimvsparrentak/status/146308360186886963... Corrections welcome.
The European Commission is the EU's executive body. The President of the European Commission (PotEC) is nominated by the European Council[0] and then elected by the directly-elected European Parliament. The Member States (other than the one from which the PotEC came) then nominate Commissioners who are assigned portfolios from the PotEC and are approved en-bloc by the European Parliament.[1] Commissioners aren't members of the European Parliament.
You're right the DMA isn't law yet, it's only party-way through second step of the process, the Ordinary Legislative Procedure.
The Ordinary legislative Procedure works something like this:
1. The Commission adopts a Proposal for a legislative act (i.e. a Directive or Regulation)
2. The European Parliament considers the proposal in committees (with a nominated lead committee), and then in plenary. This will almost certainly involve amending the text of the proposal.
3. If approved by the European Parliament, the proposal then moves to the Council of the European Union (not to be confused with the European Council, mentioned above, or the Council of Europe, which is not an EU body.[2]). This Council is made up of representatives (often ministers) from each of the member states, but not the heads of state and government.
4. If the Council has suggested amendments to the text then these can either be accepted by the European Parliament or a process known as "trialogue" happens, where there are negotiations between Parliament, Council and Commission.
5. Once the institutions have agreed on the final text, the act is published in the Official Journal of the European Union and becomes law.
[0] The body comprising the heads of state and government of the EU's member states
[1] But only after Parliament holds confirmation hearings. These can - and have - led to portfolios being re-assigned or to member states withdrawing their candidates and replacing them with somebody more acceptable to Parliament.
[2] Somebody really needs to do something about these names as it's confusing AF. Although generally the Council of the European Union is referred to as just "the Council".
You're right the DMA isn't law yet, it's only party-way through second step of the process, the Ordinary Legislative Procedure.
The Ordinary legislative Procedure works something like this:
1. The Commission adopts a Proposal for a legislative act (i.e. a Directive or Regulation)
2. The European Parliament considers the proposal in committees (with a nominated lead committee), and then in plenary. This will almost certainly involve amending the text of the proposal.
3. If approved by the European Parliament, the proposal then moves to the Council of the European Union (not to be confused with the European Council, mentioned above, or the Council of Europe, which is not an EU body.[2]). This Council is made up of representatives (often ministers) from each of the member states, but not the heads of state and government.
4. If the Council has suggested amendments to the text then these can either be accepted by the European Parliament or a process known as "trialogue" happens, where there are negotiations between Parliament, Council and Commission.
5. Once the institutions have agreed on the final text, the act is published in the Official Journal of the European Union and becomes law.
[0] The body comprising the heads of state and government of the EU's member states
[1] But only after Parliament holds confirmation hearings. These can - and have - led to portfolios being re-assigned or to member states withdrawing their candidates and replacing them with somebody more acceptable to Parliament.
[2] Somebody really needs to do something about these names as it's confusing AF. Although generally the Council of the European Union is referred to as just "the Council".
> Although generally the Council of the European Union is referred to as just "the Council".
I mean, I'm not sure that _helps_.
I mean, I'm not sure that _helps_.
Hah, probably not!
But it's a good rule of thumb that unless the full name is used then "[the] Council" means "the Council of the European Union" rather than any of the others.
Maybe it's just me who finds that useful...
But it's a good rule of thumb that unless the full name is used then "[the] Council" means "the Council of the European Union" rather than any of the others.
Maybe it's just me who finds that useful...
Aaargh, even knowing about the clusterfuck that is the three councils, I still mixed them up >.< Thanks for the additions.
Also, I'd point out that there's still a step 6: once the law has been adopted by the EU, it doesn't come into effect until the countries have incorporated into their own laws, for which I think they have two years?
Also, I'd point out that there's still a step 6: once the law has been adopted by the EU, it doesn't come into effect until the countries have incorporated into their own laws, for which I think they have two years?
>Also, I'd point out that there's still a step 6: once the law has been adopted by the EU, it doesn't come into effect until the countries have incorporated into their own laws, for which I think they have two years?
For Directives, yes. However Regulations don't need domestic legislation to take effect, the exact same text is law across the whole of the EU (and often the EEA) as soon as it comes in to effect.
Although once the act has been published in the OJ it is law, irrespective of the type of law. It's just that Directives are addressed to (bind) Member States rather than the population as a whole, thus domestic legislation enacted by the member states is required to bring about the legal effects required in the Directive.
For Directives, yes. However Regulations don't need domestic legislation to take effect, the exact same text is law across the whole of the EU (and often the EEA) as soon as it comes in to effect.
Although once the act has been published in the OJ it is law, irrespective of the type of law. It's just that Directives are addressed to (bind) Member States rather than the population as a whole, thus domestic legislation enacted by the member states is required to bring about the legal effects required in the Directive.
Huh, today I learned! Thanks for educating me.
If there no longer a competitive advantage in having a differentiated platform in the EU, then let others spend the resources on that service.