this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025

143 points (99.3% liked)

Privacy

43982 readers

847 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

143

WhatsApp "interoperability" (feddit.it)

submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by mattreb@feddit.it to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Apparently Europe finally got Whatsapp to enable 3rd party chats making it easier to switch to more privacy friendly alternatives article However the only other app that currently works with it is "BirdyChat"??

Have anybody found any news about when serious alternatives will be integrated?

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 41 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Pretty sure signal refused to integrate

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 9 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

Signal should be subject to the same law. So I hope all it takes is someone making a bridge that forces Signal to open up as well.

[–] sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today 35 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't want to chat with people on WhatsApp with Signal. I don't want Meta linking my metadata. Interoperability will only keep people from switching to better platforms

[–] sleen@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 weeks ago

Yes this "solution" is just a bandaid to the problem which is capitalism. All this is going to do is make these corpos look like they are doing something good - but in the end, all of this is just a blur.

[–] BlueBockser@programming.dev 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

While I agree with your sentiment, no interoperability obviously hasn't made people switch to better platforms either. The only difference is that without interoperability, I'm forced to still use WhatsApp to communicate with those unwilling / unable to switch.

[–] sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago

I would disagree. I've gotten quite a few people in my life to use Signal

[–] mikedd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

Seconded.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

this part of the DMA only applies to “gatekeepers”, which are very large providers. the biggest barriers to being a gateway are (imo) turnover of > €7.5bn, 45m active monthly users in the EU

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 5 points 3 weeks ago

State mandated XMPP. I didn't know I'm cool with authoritarianism until now!

[–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

As they should, considering Meta would then have access to all that user data. They're just fundamentally different systems.

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Any link of this BirdyChat?

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Ok sorry, it was in the article:

https://www.birdy.chat/

And also this:

https://haiket.com/

[–] PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz 9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It seems like a work chat app

https://www.birdy.chat/

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 weeks ago

It's definitely something I'll use, since work chat is all I do on WhatsApp currently.

I only need to be sure it isn't some scam, although the alternative is Meta, so... yeah...

[+] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

apperently meta gets to pick it, and it is not a public api.

No they dont, and it's a public modified Matrix-protocol. Why would you lie about that?

The problem is that WhatsApp can demand third parties to meet very high standards, making it impossible for independent actors to gain access to this.

You need a pretty well run machinery to live up to the standard, but if they do, WhatApps can legally not deny access.

If they do, it's in violation of the DMA, which gives you a 10% of all global income in fees.

These has been used against Meta and Google before, and there's no reason to believe they wont do it again. They actually live up to it.

[–] bartleby1@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

WhatsApp was originally built on, and still is, a forked version of XMPP. It is nothing like the matrix protocol.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not, but they made a WhatsApp API for the DMA. There's a Matrix bridge to WhatsApp.

[–] bartleby1@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I understand the DMA interop thing quite well, and it is a private API. The matrix bridge does not use official interop as the Matrix foundation has given up on plans to do interop, as it requires geolocating (and then georestricting) their users.

The current, longstanding, matrix bridge requires you to have the WhatsApp app installed on your phone, with a working account.

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

From my understanding, this bridge does use some the official WhatsApp web client's API. You only need to connect the official app once in a while (a few seconds every two weeks) and can do so on a separate device.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Share the documentation then if it's public.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

https://developers.facebook.com/messaging-interoperability

Again, I dont think you can access it unless you follow the rules.

I guess it's not true public, but you can if you meet the requirements.

[–] bartleby1@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 weeks ago

You’re correct, it is not a public API. In fact, just to see the specs, you need to be either an organization (or an indie developer) registered in the EU and have to sign a massive NDA just to get the documentation!

[–] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 3 weeks ago

The Birdy app requires a work email, which then gets you on a wait list, so that you can subject yourself to their data mining:

Data Categories:

The email address you use as username on BirdyChat network;
Your messages and media within messages;
User identifiers for blocked WhatsApp users;
Usage information including timestamps related to your communication with WhatsApp users;
Device and connection information such as IP address, operating system information and the BirdyChat version you are using;
General location information using your IP address;
Authentication information including encryption keys that WhatsApp encryption protocol uses;
WhatsApp user reports in case a WhatsApp user chooses to share this information with WhatsApp.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 weeks ago

I'm going to setup my own open source chat server soon and just give the few people that need to talk to me a copy of the open source client. That you can use to talk to me, the rest will be gone

I'm sooooo fucking tired of every company and government wanting to inspect my asshole just so they know that toilet paper to advertise to me or to be sure that I'm "not a terrorist or a pedophile because the government totally is doing this to protect the children, absolutely!!!"

Fuck your lies

Fuck your marketing

And apologies for my French, I'm just reeeeeeaaaally done with this nonsense

[–] artyom@piefed.social 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Have anybody found any news about when serious alternatives will be integrated?

...never? They're not integrated because they don't want them integrated. This is malicious compliance. Even if they were, the opt-in nature would make it completely useless. Much like Apple's RCS integration.

[–] mattreb@feddit.it 3 points 3 weeks ago

yeah this is pretty much what I was thinking, but I made the post just because I was really hoping this was not the case...

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm already using a matrix bridge for it because I can't get some cousins to move natively to Matrix. But if that would make it more stable it would be appreciated.

[–] DSN9@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

I can ditch what's app and use matrix with what's app 😅👀???

[–] Tundra@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

if it works the same as a bridge, message is relayed unencrypted

[–] bartleby1@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

!beeper@lemmy.ml

[–] Undertaker@feddit.org 1 points 4 weeks ago

As your are talking about privacy friendly alternatives, the answer is none, because they would immediately lose their privacy friendlyness