Today: #DMA #compliance workshop with #Meta lawyers at the @EU_Commission:
The #DigitalMarketsAct mandates Meta to "enable end users to freely choose to opt-in to [combining or cross-using personal data] by offering a less personalised but equivalent alternative".
When I pointed out to Meta that by offering users to either #consent to #SurveillanceAds or pay € 275 per year for #Instagram & #Facebook isn't "equivalent alternative" they said, Meta *has* to do that because of #GDPR 😤 Really??
Background: #Meta had outlined in depth how all other instances of personal data cross-use and combination across services have now a real consent screen included that enables people to choose data use or "less personalised but equivalent" alternatives; aka not paid (as required by DMA Art 5.2).
Just not for #surveillance ads, presumably because this would impact Meta's bottom line.
#Meta lobbyist: "Nothing in this space is as secure and tried and tested as the #Signal protocol."
CC @signalapp
Ouh, so I just asked WhatsApp whether #interoperability with @matrix (should they request it) would apply to @element Inc, the Matrix.org reference server, or the entire federation?
Answer: probably the legal entity, so either Element Inc or the Matrix Foundation. I assume they would have to choose which server this includes.
But (did I hear that correctly?) the Meta person almost sounded as if a broadening to the federation could potentially be envisaged in the future.
In any event, it sounds like #WhatsApp is planning to make #interoperability opt-in only; but not in the way I suggested, which is give WA users a yes/no button when a non-WA user asks to connect, just like #Signal does already for Signal users.
I interpret #Meta's response to my question as meaning that WA users will have to actively switch on interop in the settings before people can ping them.
Today: #DMA compliance workshop with #Alphabet/#Google :)
While Alphabet seems to be better in terms of the new #browser & #search choice screens, they have a strange view regarding their new obligation to allow un-installing pre-installed apps like #PlayStore or #Gmail:
Alphabet's lobbyists argue un-install and remove are two different things and as the #DigitalMarketsAct's Art 6(3) only mandates un-install but not removal, the current "deactivation" feature in Android would be enough. 🤔
Haha #Google bitches against #Apple: "We allow 3rd party app stores, #sideloading, automatic updates for sideloaded apps, and #PWA for free."
@ilumium That’s one good side of Android. But the reason is that at the end is “we don’t mind much about other AppStores because at the root we are an advertising company and we still make money “
@santiago @ilumium hmm, I don't think that's entirely true. Google makes a lot of money at very high profit margins from Google Play. They are not DMA compliant, they just have a very different strategy than Apple. #Android started how being open source to attract developers, so Google built their monopoly upon a more open platform. To do so, they've mastered dark patterns, nudging, and security as monopoly enforcement integrated into the best tech in key areas (e.g. search).
@eighthave @ilumium Note that I am not saying they don’t make money elsewhere but last data I saw was still 80% (?) of Google revenue was advertising. Maybe two years ago. I imagine they try to get out of it which is now happening with higher prices for the services we have become entangled in.