eu-dma-interop: en translation

Signed-off-by: Maxime “pep” Buquet <pep@bouah.net>

content/posts/eu-dma-interoperability.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+---
+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 still 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 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 and Youtube on Android.
+
+# 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!

content/posts/eu-dma-interoperability.fr.md

@@ -5,8 +5,6 @@ translationKey: 'eu-dma-interoperability'
 tags: [XMPP, Regulations, Free Market, Capitalism]
 ---
 
-*English translation coming soon™.*
-
 En réaction à l'[annonce du parlement européen][0] de forcer certains
 fournisseurs de services à permettre à d'autres plus petits d'intéragir, qu'on
 appelle ici « interopérabilité ».