blog.bouah.net/content/posts/eu-dma-interoperability.en.md

---
title: "Interoperability in a “Big Tech” world"
date: 2022-04-04T12:00:00+01:00
translationKey: 'eu-dma-interoperability'
tags: [XMPP, Regulations, Free Market, Capitalism]
---


As an answer to the [announce of the EU parliament][0] to force some service
providers to allow others to interact with them, that we call
"interoperability".

[0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220315IPR25504/deal-on-digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-competition-and-more-choice-for-users

# Interoperability

In theory, interoperability is a way to allow different networks to
communicate together. And it's great, it's even important for emancipation,
empowerment of users.

I have concerns though because I think in general it makes user experience
(UX) more complex, and even screws up the various efforts applications make in
this domain[^1].

This law says it's going to force big companies (Facebook, Apple, etc.) that
it calls "gatekeepers" to open their services to other networks.

In practice these networks will be accessible via *bridges*. A bridge is the
software layer that handles the connection between different networks. It
understands the language (protocol) that these applications speak, and
translates from one to the other.

These bridges already exist for various open, and proprietary protocols like
WhatsApp. A problem is that it is in WhatsApp's interest to ensure their users
don't use any other applications than the ones they provide. As soon as
WhatsApp realizes that a bridge works, they will quickly change something in
their software to ensure it doesn't anymore, and may also ban accounts that
were using the bridges, etc.

[^1]: *TODO: expand on this in another article*

# Power struggle

What implications are there from small networks' perspective? And as it would
also impact users if it's not beneficial for networks, what implications are
there for the users?

How will these platforms now handle questions of identity at their doors?
Usually they would ask a phone number, an ID card and whatnot.

Now that they don't have control over the whole network, will users have to
register credentials with the bridge to communicate? Often that's used as an
excuse to protect themselves from spam, and it may indeed, but it also has
various harmful effects on users.

It's not because the law now says that they have to allow interoperability
that they will magically adopt good practices[^2]. They are still sharks and
will still be in position of strengh over other players on the network.

[^2]: The phrase "good practices" is to be defined obviously, by a collective
  discussion between equals, not out of a unilateral decision.

With their important userbase these platforms would be able to impose certain
practices to all who want to communicate with them. It's already been the case
when Google (gtalk), Facebook, and Microsoft were using XMPP, and it's
possible to observe this behaviour also in email with Google (gmail) and
Microsoft.

In summary, pretence of debate during standardization -- if it even happens --
caused by this position of strengh.

# A power struggle already here?

Some say this power struggle already exists, and it's true. To what extent do
these companies influence our protocols and applications already? I wouldn't
know.

I would say many features and UX come from them. Because of their huge
userbase, lots of us active in the XMPP community tell ourselves we need to at
least be able to equal them to be as attractive, and that's how it gets in the
protocol.

By forcing these companies to open up -- which will also be turned upside down
as a marketing strategy to show their goodness by the way -- won't this
influence grow even more in our spheres? To what extent?

In email for example, if you've had the chance to host your own server, you
certainly have had to cross swords with gmail.com, very influent in this area,
where a good chunk of your contacts are hosted.

Google easily abuses its position of strengh to impose various anti-spam
measures, and other practices which they pulled out of their magic hat (they
might have asked their friends over at Microsoft and co). And if one day they
wish to stop communicating with you, meaning you lose access to a majority
of your contacts, you have no say in it.

To clarify the use of the word "force": These regulations aren't in the
interest of the companies we're talking about. Let me remind you as I've said
above that as we speak they actively try to prevent any "unsanctioned"
implementation to use their platforms.

That's why it is generally complex and time-consuming to maintain a bridge.
They will actively fight you and you will need to update your code again and
again. Another example would be NewPipe, youtube-dl, yt-dlp, which aren't
bridges but different Youtube frontends, without ads, which obviously doesn't
go Youtube's way and which require regular updates to keep up.

# In summary

One can imagine the bare minimum will be done to comply with the law -- after
a horde of lobbyists has gone over it again and again, to weaken it even more.

Forcing interoperability is only a question of form, and not of substance. The
problem still is capitalism, accumulation of wealth and power, and monopolies
and oppressions that these create.

It's certainly pessimistic, but I doubt forcing these monopolies to
communicate with other entities allow the free XMPP community to oppose their
ideas and provoke substancial changes within these services, and I'm
picturing the opposite rather.

Down with capitalism. Down with oppressions.