So I [in theory, I don’t know how to start with this on a technical level] could make a third-party Signal-compatible app, but allow it to connect to Whatsapp instead of Signal? Even if I can’t use my Signal account to contact Whatsapp people, that’s still potentially useful. Although I imagine the terms I’d have to agree to to do so would be full of nonsense that stops this being remotely feasible.
I guess I’m misunderstanding here - I thought Whatsapp would be the “service” in my case, I’m just making a client to hook into their, presumably open [to people who agree to whatever their terms are] API. So it’s more of a federation thing between services?
Yeah I believe this to be a fallacy. If all your contacts use WhatsApp, they still haven’t grasped the concept of installing two applications side-by-side. Or they don’t fully understand why people are using signal over WhatsApp. If you fail both of those, congratulations, you’ve failed to be a self-aware tech user and you’re now demoted to a braindead consumer.
I know, mind blowing right? Point is, society in general should not accept others forcing you to keep the WhatsApp monopoly in tact, which is exactly what’s happening here.
It will take some time but eventually adoption will spread, even among your contacts. It’s just a matter of critical mass, and there are some pretty compelling features within Signal that make it a worthy replacement.
It depends on whether they get a fair offer, or a bullshit one that has to work through the courts and be officially ruled bullshit before they’ll offer anything better.
Eh, my missus insisted we use Signal, but it’s just flat out not as reliable. It misses messages very occasionally and it’s always at the worst possible time.
Like I get that it’s a tiny bit more private than Whatsapp, but I’m not running a terror cell or a paedo ring over here. I just want to know if she wants anything from the shop.
It’s private and you can verify that, not to mention it’s non-profit. WhatsApp claims to be private but Meta has broken promises before and doesn’t let us look at source code. It’s not a “tiny bit”
Why not convince people to use Signal as well? Even my family has a group chat on Signal. Of course, it’s a slow move with most people sticking to non-open chats. But it’s worth the effort I would say.
Most of the world doesn’t use SMS, they use WhatsApp. Plus, SMS is even worse than WhatsApp for privacy and security. And stopping using WhatsApp in most of the world is like not using email, so no “I don’t have WhatsApp, you can only contact me through signal” is possible.
I don’t just mean socially speaking. But for contacting services and stuff. My car insurance company only accepts reports through Whatsapp or through calling a guy to come look at your face for a fee.
In some different countries, WhatsApp is how people conduct business. I am anti WhatsApp in my regular life, but I used it with a VOIP number when I was traveling abroad.
It’s one thing to tell your friends and family you use Signal, you can’t tell literally every business. Well, you can, they just won’t to do business with you.
It might work with people you know but is harder to convince people you just met, that’s the reason I still use Whatsapp and recently opened an Instagram.
Meanwhile I can do all that what you describe on Signal just as easily as that. A friend of mine often sends me Instagram reels on signal because I don’t have any insta account. And I actually don’t know anyone who has or at least uses a fb account anymore xD
I dislike when they say in news clips that Signal represents the “current gold standard” for E2EE chats, it doesn’t, Signal is a helluva lot better than the commercial stuff that mines user data but there’s stuff like SimpleX Chat that doesn’t leak even metadata because it doesn’t have it.
Still, this is a good thing, these megacorps have their iron grip on people because they have raised walls around their services making it painful for people to move to a different service, tearing down those walls can only help us all.
Thanks for the tip about SimpleX, that looks interesting! I could never use Signal due to the way they operate and force you to rely on their and Google’s servers, actively blocking forks from their network. So much for FOSS…
SimpleX is very neat. But it cannot do multiple devices unless you count shutting down, exporting database to new device replacing existing database as a sensible workflow. Using the database on two devices at once will break encryption and cause all sorts of weird problems.
They do provide an apk outside of the Play Store, that uses a Web Socket for push notifications. Not he best way of going about it, but hey, it exists.
Signal encryption can be taken out of the app and applied elsewhere, because it has been already done. SimpleX is nice but this is single app single implementation thing.
At least we know that this won’t be open federation. But still maybe some company could bridge them or at least could become a JMP.chat like service for WhatsApp.
Sure, but any messaging app (including Signal) could have these backdoors in place. Heck, there’s even vectors for unrelated apps on your phone to read this data once unencrypted.
That’s actually true. We don’t know the real-time server code of Signal. Though other apps cannot read what’s written inside Signal, that’s the good part. I prefer private server + Matrix but Signal is the easiest for regular people.
Whatsapp CANNOT read messages when e2ee is enabled, this client-side snooping was discussed when the protocol was first implemented. Whatsapp collects a ton of metadata and social graph info, but not message content.
Well you type messages in in plain text and they decrypt it to show you the messages at the other end. So they can do the nefarious processing on the client side and send back results to the mother ship. E2EE is only good when you trust the two ends, but with WhatsApp and Messenger you shouldn’t trust the ends.
Them being nonprofit has nothing to do with the pursuit of marketshare. Plenty of nonprofits want to maximize marketshare. Them being nonprofit means they are mission-driven.
Them being nonprofit has nothing to do with the pursuit of marketshare.
Um, of course it does? LOL
Them being nonprofit means they are mission-driven.
And what is that mission?
Let’s talk about what the opposite of their mission is: Mainly operating as a source of data collection and revenue for a corporate surveillance and advertising agency.
Do they want more users? Sure. Are they going to compromise on their core principles out of convenience for their users? Abso-fuckin-lutely not.
There’s also the opposite to consider: that users would decide to use WhatsApp instead of Signal because they can, which then puts you in the uncomfortable position I find myself in often where I have to tell people I’m not accepting their messages from insecure platforms.
It’s annoying as fuck when I message my wife a video of our kids, it looks like dog shit on her iPhone. I have to instead send it on Whatsapp or signal. I hate apple
That’s because you’re using SMS, that’s not the fault of the messaging app. Using a third party messaging app is the correct way to go, it’s encrypted, supports group chats, and bigger messages.
Kinda true in Europe though. Don’t know anyone who uses iMessage, it’s pretty much irrelevant. I know the situation in the US is quite different, but ultimately they don’t regulate for the US market.
I don’t think it’s ever happened to me that anyone told me that it was inconvenient for them that I didn’t have iMessage, compared to pretty much weekly exclamations of “But why can’t you just use WhatsApp like everyone else!?”
Apple would still feel pressure to add interoperability if all other big players do. iMessage would have a competitive disadvantage if it’s the only one where users are unable to message the rest of the world.
Yes. Still, it would be harder to not give a f if others walled gardens open up, and iMessage get disadvantaged by that wall.
It’s as if iPhones were only able to make calls to other iPhones. Whereas all other devices where able to make calls to any device from any other vendor.
Meta says that it will only allow third-party developers to use another protocol besides Signal, “if they are able to demonstrate it offers the same security guarantees as Signal.”
If matrix finally finishes implementing MLS, maybe they could convince meta to use it.
Last time they touched an open chat protocol, they hung it out to dry. That was XMPP. That’s why more than half of the fediverse is reluctant or outright hostile to federate with anything meta.
You are underplaying the damage Google and FB did to XMPP. It wasn’t supposed to be relegated to an obscure backend protocol. The involvement of those companies ensured that it didn’t become a popular user-facing protocol.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Does this mean third party apps will be able to interact with whatsapp?
only when the service specifically requests it and agrees to Whatsapp’s terms.
deleted by creator
So I [in theory, I don’t know how to start with this on a technical level] could make a third-party Signal-compatible app, but allow it to connect to Whatsapp instead of Signal? Even if I can’t use my Signal account to contact Whatsapp people, that’s still potentially useful. Although I imagine the terms I’d have to agree to to do so would be full of nonsense that stops this being remotely feasible.
you’d have to create a messaging service, not just a client.
I guess I’m misunderstanding here - I thought Whatsapp would be the “service” in my case, I’m just making a client to hook into their, presumably open [to people who agree to whatever their terms are] API. So it’s more of a federation thing between services?
yeah, I guess you could call it that.
Please Signal, use this opportunity. I really want to be on Signal AAAAH
Signal absolutely should not interoperate with other data-mining software.
And they won’t, for the same reason they removed SMS (no insecure messaging options).
That’s so short sided. Signal is useless if all your contacts only use WhatsApp.
It’s not useless. It has a very specific use that does not coincide with interoperability with data-mining corporations.
It also does not coincide with most people
It doesn’t have to. It does, however, have to remain private.
It’s up to us to sway them over!
Yeah I believe this to be a fallacy. If all your contacts use WhatsApp, they still haven’t grasped the concept of installing two applications side-by-side. Or they don’t fully understand why people are using signal over WhatsApp. If you fail both of those, congratulations, you’ve failed to be a self-aware tech user and you’re now demoted to a braindead consumer.
I know, mind blowing right? Point is, society in general should not accept others forcing you to keep the WhatsApp monopoly in tact, which is exactly what’s happening here.
It will take some time but eventually adoption will spread, even among your contacts. It’s just a matter of critical mass, and there are some pretty compelling features within Signal that make it a worthy replacement.
Most people are indeed technically not savvy and don’t understand why they would need more than WhatsApp and Instagram on their phone.
It depends on whether they get a fair offer, or a bullshit one that has to work through the courts and be officially ruled bullshit before they’ll offer anything better.
Eh, my missus insisted we use Signal, but it’s just flat out not as reliable. It misses messages very occasionally and it’s always at the worst possible time.
Like I get that it’s a tiny bit more private than Whatsapp, but I’m not running a terror cell or a paedo ring over here. I just want to know if she wants anything from the shop.
It’s private and you can verify that, not to mention it’s non-profit. WhatsApp claims to be private but Meta has broken promises before and doesn’t let us look at source code. It’s not a “tiny bit”
Classic “No thing to hide, nothing to fear.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#Criticism
They have already announced that they will not be interoperable with insecure messaging apps unfortunately.
Why not convince people to use Signal as well? Even my family has a group chat on Signal. Of course, it’s a slow move with most people sticking to non-open chats. But it’s worth the effort I would say.
Yeah after two years even my parents and brother are on signal plus most of my close friends, the rest I just use regular sms
Most of the world doesn’t use SMS, they use WhatsApp. Plus, SMS is even worse than WhatsApp for privacy and security. And stopping using WhatsApp in most of the world is like not using email, so no “I don’t have WhatsApp, you can only contact me through signal” is possible.
That’s always the problem with monopolies and big corporations. They make it harder for you as an individual to use alternatives.
It’s certainly possible. It annoys some people, but that’s life.
I don’t just mean socially speaking. But for contacting services and stuff. My car insurance company only accepts reports through Whatsapp or through calling a guy to come look at your face for a fee.
So there is an alternative. There has to be.
In some different countries, WhatsApp is how people conduct business. I am anti WhatsApp in my regular life, but I used it with a VOIP number when I was traveling abroad.
It’s one thing to tell your friends and family you use Signal, you can’t tell literally every business. Well, you can, they just won’t to do business with you.
It might work with people you know but is harder to convince people you just met, that’s the reason I still use Whatsapp and recently opened an Instagram.
Yeah, but you can still chat with them on the insecure messenger. You can have both on your phone.
What would be the win if signal would support sending messages to WhatsApp? You’d still be putting your trust into meta.
I do have both.
I didnt say anything about the interoperability. I can imagine some wins… but nothing game changing tbh.
I remember the days when I spent time convincing people to use chat apps. The last one that stuck was WhatsApp.
I’ve since stopped installing new chat apps because people won’t use them.
WhatsApp just works. Wanna video call my Mum? Push a button. Wanna send a Lemmy meme to my mates? Yeah it’s 3 taps.
I open up Facebook on me birthday and press the ❤️ on the birthday messages then shut it down and don’t use it for another year.
But if I do that with WhatsApp then I don’t hear from people I actually care about.
I actually have a friend that refuses to use WhatsApp like I do with FaceFuck. “How does she do it then?” I hear you ask.
She uses Facebook Messenger.
That’s the hold Meta has on our communications
Meanwhile I can do all that what you describe on Signal just as easily as that. A friend of mine often sends me Instagram reels on signal because I don’t have any insta account. And I actually don’t know anyone who has or at least uses a fb account anymore xD
The inability to use it on two different phones kills it for me.
deleted by creator
You can. Up to 7.
Is there a guide to this? I still can’t use a different phone as a linked device, only on desktop or iPads.
https://faq.whatsapp.com/1317564962315842/?cms_platform=android
This worked for me!
I don’t think that’s Signal haha
Aw man, I missunterstood everything :(
I really don’t expect anyone would listen to me.
How could they, they aren’t on signal
I’m more concerned with what the first-party provider is doing with my sent or received messages when that first-party is Facebook!
I dislike when they say in news clips that Signal represents the “current gold standard” for E2EE chats, it doesn’t, Signal is a helluva lot better than the commercial stuff that mines user data but there’s stuff like SimpleX Chat that doesn’t leak even metadata because it doesn’t have it.
Still, this is a good thing, these megacorps have their iron grip on people because they have raised walls around their services making it painful for people to move to a different service, tearing down those walls can only help us all.
The standard is about the protocol, not every bit of the implementation. 3DH / X3DH and double ratchet, etc, are among the best for E2EE.
@jherazob @Mysteriarch Though great with some worthy competition for Signal!
A standard is also about broad adoption though, so I don’t think you can call SimpleX a standard yet.
Thanks for the tip about SimpleX, that looks interesting! I could never use Signal due to the way they operate and force you to rely on their and Google’s servers, actively blocking forks from their network. So much for FOSS…
SimpleX is very neat. But it cannot do multiple devices unless you count shutting down, exporting database to new device replacing existing database as a sensible workflow. Using the database on two devices at once will break encryption and cause all sorts of weird problems.
They do provide an apk outside of the Play Store, that uses a Web Socket for push notifications. Not he best way of going about it, but hey, it exists.
Signal encryption can be taken out of the app and applied elsewhere, because it has been already done. SimpleX is nice but this is single app single implementation thing.
It appears SimpleX is not even available for me (Android 8).
@Mysteriarch I deeply hope that there will be some connection to Matrix in the future.
Wake up Neo. Follow the white rabbit
At least we know that this won’t be open federation. But still maybe some company could bridge them or at least could become a JMP.chat like service for WhatsApp.
Element wrote a first look summary on this: https://element.io/blog/the-eu-digital-markets-act-is-here/
Would this mean I could finally ditch what’s app and use only Signal?
No, Signal announced they won’t implement interoperable messaging.
Source?
https://www.androidpolice.com/signal-threema-nothing-to-do-with-whatsapp-eu/
Ugh, an ad-block force wall. No visit.
What adblocker are you using? It doesn’t appear for me.
The built-in ad blocker of the Vivaldi browser
I’m using Firefox + uBlock Origin and don’t have a paywall.
kind of dumb they could get huge market share
It’s not. There is no privacy if you send your message to Whatsapp servers.
There’s even less privacy if I have to have the WhatsApp app installed on my phone to send that message.
You have the big plus of not having the WhatsApp app installed and snooping around with all those permissions it has.
Would it not be E2EE? Isn’t that one of the reasons for using the Signal protocol?
Yes, the “delivering” part would be E2EE. Do we really know the afterwards if they can read their users’ messages? They probably can.
Sure, but any messaging app (including Signal) could have these backdoors in place. Heck, there’s even vectors for unrelated apps on your phone to read this data once unencrypted.
That’s actually true. We don’t know the real-time server code of Signal. Though other apps cannot read what’s written inside Signal, that’s the good part. I prefer private server + Matrix but Signal is the easiest for regular people.
Signal clients are open-source.
Whatsapp CANNOT read messages when e2ee is enabled, this client-side snooping was discussed when the protocol was first implemented. Whatsapp collects a ton of metadata and social graph info, but not message content.
Well you type messages in in plain text and they decrypt it to show you the messages at the other end. So they can do the nefarious processing on the client side and send back results to the mother ship. E2EE is only good when you trust the two ends, but with WhatsApp and Messenger you shouldn’t trust the ends.
if i remember correctly, it would be E2EE (WhatsApp and Messenger are too) but Meta stores the encrypted message on their server
Yeah, this worked so well for XMPP when everybody federated with Gmail chat.
Well, it worked out for Google when it federated with Jabber, who first open sourced XMPP.
Signal does not care about “market share”, they’re a non-profit.
Them being nonprofit has nothing to do with the pursuit of marketshare. Plenty of nonprofits want to maximize marketshare. Them being nonprofit means they are mission-driven.
And what is that mission?
Per the Signal Foundation’s website:
Um, of course it does? LOL
Let’s talk about what the opposite of their mission is: Mainly operating as a source of data collection and revenue for a corporate surveillance and advertising agency.
Do they want more users? Sure. Are they going to compromise on their core principles out of convenience for their users? Abso-fuckin-lutely not.
There’s also the opposite to consider: that users would decide to use WhatsApp instead of Signal because they can, which then puts you in the uncomfortable position I find myself in often where I have to tell people I’m not accepting their messages from insecure platforms.
Not if signal doesn’t want to support WhatsApp, and I don’t think they’re going to unfortunately :(
Is there a reason this requirement doesn’t apply to iMessage as well?
I’ve read somewhere that iMessage wasn’t considered “big enough” to be considerate a monopoly. Which is bullshit if you ask me.
Its only big in the US, most of the planet only sees iMessage as that borderline useless app Apple bundles in their phones.
It’s annoying as fuck when I message my wife a video of our kids, it looks like dog shit on her iPhone. I have to instead send it on Whatsapp or signal. I hate apple
That’s because you’re using SMS, that’s not the fault of the messaging app. Using a third party messaging app is the correct way to go, it’s encrypted, supports group chats, and bigger messages.
Oh I’m well aware of that, I’m just complaining 😂
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Hopefully not RCS, but maybe Matrix or the Signal protocol, as RCS is entirely controlled by Google and there aren’t any FOSS clients.
deleted by creator
Kinda true in Europe though. Don’t know anyone who uses iMessage, it’s pretty much irrelevant. I know the situation in the US is quite different, but ultimately they don’t regulate for the US market.
It’s very popular here in 'merica, the land of the zombies.
@aberrate_junior_beatnik @penquin I found a nice page with statistics about the different messengers: engage.sinch.com/blog/most-pop…
It seems that only in the US more people are using iMessage than WhatsApp.
I don’t think it’s ever happened to me that anyone told me that it was inconvenient for them that I didn’t have iMessage, compared to pretty much weekly exclamations of “But why can’t you just use WhatsApp like everyone else!?”
To be fair here in Europe I know no one who uses iMessage.
Apple would still feel pressure to add interoperability if all other big players do. iMessage would have a competitive disadvantage if it’s the only one where users are unable to message the rest of the world.
Have you met Apple and their walled garden of “IDGAF”?
Yes. Still, it would be harder to not give a f if others walled gardens open up, and iMessage get disadvantaged by that wall.
It’s as if iPhones were only able to make calls to other iPhones. Whereas all other devices where able to make calls to any device from any other vendor.
Don’t give them ideas!
If matrix finally finishes implementing MLS, maybe they could convince meta to use it.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
What is the advantage of this over olm/megolm?
Last time they touched an open chat protocol, they hung it out to dry. That was XMPP. That’s why more than half of the fediverse is reluctant or outright hostile to federate with anything meta.
XMPP is used in many, many places. It’s just not usually explicitly known that the backend is using that protocol
You are underplaying the damage Google and FB did to XMPP. It wasn’t supposed to be relegated to an obscure backend protocol. The involvement of those companies ensured that it didn’t become a popular user-facing protocol.
I think he/she meant convincing Meta to use MLS, not Matrix.
Now that I read it again, you may be right.