1y ago

Whatsapp has begun working on support for third party chats (Telegram/Signal)

wabetainfo.com /whatsapp-beta-for-android-2-23-19-8-whats-new/

The European Union has recently reached an agreement on a significant competition reform known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which will impose strict rules on large tech companies that will have to offer users the ability to communicate with each other using different apps. WhatsApp is one of the companies that will be required to comply with the new regulations outlined in the European Union’s Digital Markets Act. This is because WhatsApp is considered a gatekeeper service since it’s a large tech platform with a substantial user base and falls within the criteria set by the DMA. With the latest WhatsApp beta for Android 2.23.19.8 update, which is available on the Google Play Store, we discovered that WhatsApp is working on complying with the new regulations:

As you can see in this screenshot, WhatsApp is working on a new section dedicated to the new regulations. Since it is still in development, this section is still not ready, it appears empty and it’s not accessible to users, but its title confirms to us that they are now working on it. WhatsApp has a 6-month period to align the app with the new European regulations to provide its interoperability service in the European Union. At the moment, it remains unclear whether this feature will also eventually extend to countries beyond the European Union.

Interoperability will allow other people to contact users on WhatsApp even if they don’t have a WhatsApp account. For example, someone from the Signal app could send a message to a WhatsApp user, even without a WhatsApp account. While this broader network can definitely enhance communication with those people who use different messaging apps and assist those small apps in competing within the messaging app industry, we acknowledge that this approach may also raise important considerations about end-to-end encryption when receiving a message from users who don’t use WhatsApp. In this context, as this feature is still in its early stages of development, detailed technical information about this process on WhatsApp as a gatekeeper is currently very limited, but we can confirm that end-to-end encryption will have to be preserved in interoperable messaging systems. In addition, as mentioned in Article 7 of the regulations, it appears that users may have the option to opt out when it will be available in the future.

Third-party chat support is under development and it will be available in a future update of the app. As always, we will share a new article when we have further information regarding this feature.

118 comments

How about starting with the company who says you have to buy their phone to use their messenger. If Apple isn't eventually considered a gatekeeper, then this is a joke.
- iMessage isn't as big in Europe as it is in the US. They just looked at it and declared it's too small to be seen as a gatekeeper, in that market.
  
  No, EU lunched 5 months investigation to decide whether iMessage is big enough.

Up to a month ago, people were irritated and would constantly complain about having to use "too many chat apps" to talk with people. The EU then demands messaging apps to be interoperable, now people are irritated and will constantly complain that they do not want to send messages to X service or participate in Y service group chats
It's comical
- Apparently the feature can be disabled...But how this is implemented will be the main point. We'll see. I for one welcome this (forced) change. Maybe I can finally uninstall Whatsapp.
  
  I hold my bets that it's going to use the Matrix protocol and keep using Signal's encryption, this is pretty much what;;s out there already.
  About too many apps, I never got bother by it really, but recently I discovered Beeper, which is a fancy frontend for an ansible playbook with matrix bridges for many popular chat apps, and I really liked the convenience of having everything in one app. The playbook they use is FOSS, obviously, and you can self host it, which I did. I use the Element app and I have bridges for WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Discord, Instagram and Messenger. There are some flaws and quirks still, but in time they'll be patched out.
  If you're into self hosting, I recommend checking out the playbook, or if you just want the work done for you, check out Beeper (and for the American folks, Beeper has SMS/RCS integration and can use iMessage on Android, Windows and Linux)
  
  If they're smart they'll just do nothing to block spam via the new feature except offering a button in all new chats to turn the feature off (just like there currently is a report/block button).
  Spammers will do the rest for them :(
  And I'm not even worried about writing this here - I'm not giving them ideas, this one was obvious from the start.
- they do not want to send messages to X service
  I feel like most would understand it, Xitter has gone downhill.
  Sorry I found it too funny that we cannot use the letter X as example in some situations as it could be confusing 😅.
- i don't want google or meta to have my data, that's why i don't use their messenger services and i don't want some brussles boomers enable them to get access to it.

People who use Telegram and Signal wants to avoid Facebook at all cost and Zuck comes up with shit.

If each chat connection gets a unique ID and zero info on my [pseudo]identity then that's great! Otherwise if this means they'll plug me into their social network to profile me that way - nah, thanks
- Not sure you have a choice, other than to opt out.

Different apps being able to communicate sounds similar to the fediverse! Would be nice if there was a common protocol/library every messenger would use and clients would only need to implement it.
- Awaken from thy slumber XMPP! Bring us new and better implementations and standards, and the network effect we once enjoyed now solidified by law.
  
  That would be nice indeed.
- Some sort of extensible message protocol?
  
  Yes! And we'll name it eXtensible Message Protocol Protocol 😁
- I agree with the other commenter that it sounds a bit like the Fediverse. It's interesting to think about. I think part of what draws people to any messaging platform is continuity with the other services on the platform. The actual messaging experience can be duplicated or exceeded by anyone, like how RCS has made the humble text message more powerful and compatible than anyone at Apple could comprehend.
  With this idea, would any messaging platform that became ultra successful be then required to allow other platforms to message their users? Which platforms are allowed? How is spam managed? What about special privacy features like what's built in to Signal or Telegram? How do the platforms manage linking to content embedded in other parts of the platform (think Instagram posts/reels/messenger).
  There are a lot of difficult issues to work out.

I do not trust Whatsapp to provide the security of a signal conversation. Who wants signal and WhatsApp to talk to each other ?
- To convert yourself out of WhatsApp, then your friend, then your other friend. Instead od doing it all at once.
- People who use WhatsApp but have friends who want to use signal and vice versa.
  Your average person really does not care about this stuff,they just want something easy and familiar. This is good for people who care enough to use signal but still want to actually chat to people.
  
  I use Signal and refuse WhatsApp. However, my karate club uses Messenger to communicate, for example if you can't show up one night.
  My shihan asked if I could communicate with him over WhatsApp, which I declined. But I like the idea of being able to text him that I can't show up, or if there are some changes needed to our website. Things which aren't exactly sensitive.
- It indeed is not a good thing, because Signal might not do shit with your data, but WhatsApp might. Your conversation is mirrored to the WhatsApp user afterall. Though It would be nice if it was an optional and "dangerous" option to enable in the advanced options section. Just like how WhatsApp will allow you to disable interoperability. Because I'd rather use Signal's app over using WhatsApp if I am not going to succeed in getting others to join Signal at the very least.
  
  Just.. Don't put stuff in the WhatsApp chat that you wouldn't like shared.. I don't see how it's bad, it's not like all your convos are being mirrored and it's something you never have to use if you choose not to, but it'd be nice to be able to talk to those people who will never migrate away that I've completely lost contact with outside of Facebook since leaving WhatsApp.
- I would be surprised if Whatsapp tried to implement its own version of Telegram's, Signal's and every other messaging app's protocol to "talk" to all of these other apps. I bet they will provide an API to interoperate with Whatsapp that these other clients may (or may not) choose to implement, in order to send their messages to Whatsapp users.
  In that scenario it would up to Signal (if they implement this) to choose how to display to their users that they are sending a message to someone who's using Whatsapp, or to create options for users who want to disable this completely.
- Me...if I am 100% aware the other end is using whatsapp. Then I know what's what.

As a Signal user this will be very much welcome. I abandoned FB and its messenger to cut down on aplications on my phone and giving a fat f-u to that cancer. Then I had to jump on Discord to keep in contact with friends but I just don't like it. If I can Signal all my contacts regardless the bag of bricks they're using, it will be a win.
- Look at this https://lemmy.world/comment/3358486
  
  Let's wait and see.

Like a lot of the comments here, I misunderstood it from the headline
The European Union has recently reached an agreement on a significant competition reform known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which will impose strict rules on large tech companies that will have to offer users the ability to communicate with each other using different apps.
I didn't know this was a thing, what other apps/platforms are affected by this?
Interoperability will allow other people to contact users on WhatsApp even if they don’t have a WhatsApp account. For example, someone from the Signal app could send a message to a WhatsApp user, even without a WhatsApp account.
So it's about being able to message someone from Signal to Whatsapp. That might be a good thing for Signal/Telegram users, since you always have the option to NOT message someone from those platforms.
What I'm curious about is what data Facebook can collect from a Signal user. I assume Signal will take steps to block third party data harvesting, assuming this even goes through. There's a similar issue with Threads and other for profit companies joining the fediverse. At least with Signal there isn't that much data to begin with. I think Fediverse platforms also need some more safeguards on the privacy/security side.
- What I’m curious about is what data Facebook can collect from a Signal user.
  Exactly my thought. How will participants be id'ed? Facebook won't jump through hoops to prevent collecting phone numbers for this.
  Registering by phone number has been a major discussion point towards Signal too and I personally only tolerate that because I trust them enough to only store them hashed. I don't trust Meta.
  
  one of the main reasons i prefer threema over signal is that threema does not run on any of my personal data to get started.

Its literally required ( in some way ) in the EU. with the new DMA.

I heard that Signal said that they won't interoperate with WhatsApp and such? Some blog was going on about that.
- That's too bad, but I'm not sure how they can enforce it since anyone can build their own version of the signal client, nothing stopping WhatsApp from doing something like that.
  
  Anyone can build an implementation of the Signal client, but few do already because Signal actively works to prevent them from working with the Signal infrastructure, and likely will continue to do so. It’s one of the more common complaints about Signal, but it was built on the assumption that centralized services would be easier to use and to make private if the platform holder wanted, as well as more robust against attacks. They could well be wrong, and people just haven’t thought of and deployed the right tech, but it’s neither here nor there; I’m doubtful they can be convinced on this, and I’d doubt they’d be made to open up anyway by this regulation, meaning they’re not obligated to.
  
  Yeah but will WhatsApp allow a individual's custom Signal build to interoperate with WhatsApp?

For me it’s really good news, but I understand why some people would worry about encryption and the data transmitted to bad companies.
Still, I’m sure it’ll also be reglemented and as long as you can opt out, I’m fine with it.
- @Dariusmiles2123 @iturnedintoanewt It's opt-in simply because you can choose not to message anyone with a @whatsapp.com address

Very useful if implemented well

Will they do this everywhere, or only in the European Union?
- Everywhere.

and they want to join the Fediverse too, they are acting like the guy that wants to fit in by force. It all smells like some monopoly shenanigans
- Classic Embrace, extend, and extinguish strategy
  
  This is not really a good take given that the one that has most features, Telegram, will from now on be able to chat directly with whatsapp family memebers. People that used whatsapp will keep using it, some might switch, and people that didn't want to use it will uninstall it. Y'all are being very silly, this is something the EU is pushing Whatsapp to do, not something that has been proposed by Meta.

Nice try, Mark.
I'm not sharing my pr0n with you.
- Nice try, Mark.
  I'm not sharing my dark web hacking guides by socialist cute femboys with cat ear headphones on RGB puke standing desk at the rhythm of some sick synthwave mixes.
  
  That is oddly specific...

Does the law apply to Telegram the same way? If not, why not?
- Because Telegram was not deemed a gatekeeper to the instant messenger market by the EU, so the DMA doesn't apply. You have have millions of users in the EU and almost a billion in revenue, I think, to be deemed a gatekeeper. The Digital Service Act does apply to telegram though, I think. That one doesn't force interoperability though
  
  Do you know why it wasn't deemed a gatekeeper?

ffs finally

Try WireMin, I've been using it for a month, E2EE for dms, voice call, chat rooms, feed, pic or file transfers, P2P network. Its different with Signal/Telegram, which are run by a single company and could exit the UK if they have to. It is decentralized, it can't be controlled or banned by anyone.
- WireMin, as far as I can tell, is not open source. There's no way to prove that any of their claims are actually true. Plenty of messaging apps have claimed to be "decentralized" and "end to end encrypted", but those have been false claims a lot of the time.
  I would suggest you look into Matrix and XMPP, which are actually decentralized protocols rather than a single closed source app. Since they're open protocols, there's actual proof of them being decentralized and end-to-end-encrypted.
  Reading through the WireMin privacy policy and ToS, they are making several impossible claims, such as:
  "No user information will be provided to us, not a single bit."
  As a somewhat tech-savy Matrix user, I can already tell you there's literally no way for them to not receive user information, simply by having an app on the app or play store, user information gets sent to them for each download. Many functions in the app also cannot work without a publicly accessible server. Things like notifications, or even receiving any messages at all while the client device is behind NAT.
  They even back down on their own statements in that same privacy policy:
  "WireMin collects minimum device information, such as version number, platform, etc."
  And they clearly say a push notification token is obtained, which requires server infrastructure to use:
  "Occasionally for WireMin App on mobile devices, an additional device notification token (e.g. iOS devices) may be collected, to enable push notifications. Again, that information is collected without exposing user identity or the device's IP which eliminates the possibility of user tracking."
  While also claiming it is collected "without exposing user identity or the device's IP", which is impossible to do. (iirc) The IP protocol requires source and destination IP addresses to be known on both sides (even if I'm misremembering and it's not the IP protocol, TCP still does).
  Although I have not dug through the app, to figure out how it works internally, I can assure you it is not "decentralized", and will go down or at the very least lack basic features as soon as their servers are shut off. Them lying about such a "large" aspect of their platform also makes me heavily question the "E2EE" claim.
  Platforms such as Matrix or XMPP solve most of the issues I noted here by having decentralized servers, but ""centralized"" clients (clients only connect to one server). If any one server goes down, the clients under that server are affected, but the rest of the servers (and thus the rest of the network) is not affected.
- This looks like an ad
- Propietary garbage. Contact us @gmail.com? Links to Facebook and Twitter in the footer?
  Seriously do not download it might be a malware trying to advertise itself this way.

misleading title. it's not "whatsapp working on third party chats", it's actually "meta is working on syphoning data off third party messenger software because european apperatschiks are high on lobbyist money".
- I'm stoked on being able to uninstall whatsapp, so idk what's this take is about. If I wanted to chat with someone that had whatsapp, I had to talk to them through WhatsApp, so they are already getting that metadata anyway. Let's be honest, family memebers aren't going to install a secondary app to talk to you, you will have to install whatsapp to talk to them. It's how it works on basically all the EU. This is great.
- @mishimaenjoyer @iturnedintoanewt What are you talking about? They are lobbying against this EU regulation spreading fears that it would 'break encryption' (which is bullshit btw, since federated E2EE can work fine as shown by XMPP/OMEMO. You just need to standardize.) If WhatsApp and the like wanted to federate they were always free to do so, no lobbying required.
- Wow, Facebook is lobbying for a law that eliminates their position of monopoly and makes it easier for its users to migrate to other apps. Zuck must be playing some 4D chess.
  That, or maybe Facebook has been lobbying AGAINST this law, and your comments in this thread are just fearmongering and conspiracy theories.

118 comments