122 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
122 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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.
|