XSF Discussion - 2022-07-06


  1. Menel

    > No no they are ensuring the only ones that can exist are the ones owned by Facebook, Google, or Twitter Its about the opposite actually...

  2. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    Yeah i was confused too. Maybe they didnt read the thing 🤷‍♂️

  3. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    Then again some people think GDPR is bad for some reason so..

  4. Guus

    Does anyone know of an implementation of XEP-0430: Inbox ?

  5. Holger

    I have a half-done patch for ejabberd lying around, FWIW …

  6. jcbrand

    Regulatory capture is a well documented phenomenon and something worth seriously considering when analyzing proposed regulations. Regulations can often be used by large incumbents to keep smaller players out. Concerns that this might happen with digital services aren't completely unfounded IMO.

  7. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    jcbrand: they are not true. But its a thing for certain ideologies to disreguard any regulation as stopping "competition" or something. And not letting "free market" do its thing.

  8. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    jcbrand: i agree. But its a thing for certain ideologies to disreguard any regulation as stopping "competition" or something. And not letting "free market" do its thing. Without even reading anything mind you

  9. jcbrand

    "prevent users from un-installing any pre-installed software or app if they wish so" This one's interesting, maybe this will make it possible to remove pre-installed apps from your smartphone

  10. jcbrand

    I don't see anything on that page that really applies to XMPP

  11. emus

    > jcbrand wrote: > I don't see anything on that page that really applies to XMPP But I argue from a market and legal perspective. In general, if they need to open an comply they might review what is out there and could be a competitor. Even in case we are not, they might see it as competitor and start fighting it. I dont want to be pessimistic, just re-illustrated the situation and warnings. I would of course prefer to think about opportunities for XMPP

  12. jcbrand

    Who is "they"?

  13. jcbrand

    I'm not sure I understand your concern

  14. emus

    jcbrand: companies required to comply and open their service

  15. kurisu

    > I don't see anything on that page that really applies to XMPP What page we talking about? Seems like xmpp lost some messages on my side again..

  16. Zash

    Guessing the one linked at https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2022-07-05?p=h#2022-07-05-c6943f2aae67f225

  17. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    I doubt companies will even think about protocols. Most likely its gonna be some api and call it a day. Like twitter.

  18. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    Minimum effort style. With minimum functionality to match

  19. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    We are still trying to convince companies that its simple to comply to gdpr so i dont imagine this will be fast either

  20. singpolyma

    > simple to comply with GDPR Given how hard it is for hobbyists, I imagine a company like Google or Meta it might be verging on impossible

  21. kurisu

    Not necessarily minimum effort, probably the opposite. Corporations like to over complicate stuff, like compare the complexity and resource usage of building an android helloworld vs building a desktop gui helloworld. This may be just a result of overblown bureaucracy/bullshit jobs, and it also has a pleasant for them effect of making sure development is a PITA and takes a company to perform, so FOSS software by independent devs either isn't developed much at all or stays as barebone as possible. Compare e.g. modifying Conversations vs modifying Gajim.

  22. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    > singpolyma wrote: > Given how hard it is for hobbyists, I imagine a company like Google or Meta it might be verging on impossible False information. But then again i feel like arguing here wont get us anywhere.

  23. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    > singpolyma wrote: > Given how hard it is for hobbyists, I imagine a company like Google or Meta it might be verging on impossible False information. But then again knowing you i feel like arguing here wont get us anywhere.

  24. singpolyma

    MSavoritias (fae,ve): your inability to process facts isn't really helpful :) just calling things that don't fit your ideology "false information" seems like not r great start

  25. singpolyma

    MSavoritias (fae,ve): your inability to process facts isn't really helpful :) just calling things that don't fit your ideology "false information" seems like not a great start

  26. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    As said lets drop it because obviously your ideology here stops your from seeing things for what they are.

  27. jcbrand

    > I doubt companies will even think about protocols. Most likely its gonna be some api and call it a day. Like twitter. Yep, this is what I'd expect as well

  28. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    > kurisu wrote: > Not necessarily minimum effort, probably the opposite. Corporations like to over complicate stuff, like compare the complexity and resource usage of building an android helloworld vs building a desktop gui helloworld. This may be just a result of overblown bureaucracy/bullshit jobs, and it also has a pleasant for them effect of making sure development is a PITA and takes a company to perform, so FOSS software by independent devs either isn't developed much at all or stays as barebone as possible. Compare e.g. modifying Conversations vs modifying Gajim. I could see that happening yeah. Its a benefit to the profits of the company to make it as obscure and hard as possible.

  29. jcbrand

    > As said lets drop it because obviously your ideology here stops your from seeing things for what they are. I don't think it's helpful to immediately accuse people of being ideologues

  30. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    jcbrand: look at the message before that if you are looking for the immediate :) Also i know them for some time

  31. singpolyma

    > Also i know them for some time lol, not who has the false information ;)

  32. singpolyma

    > Also i know them for some time lol, now who has the false information ;)

  33. singpolyma

    I would love privacy law with teeth that could get actual compliance from bad actors. Just sad that the in-practise reality of GDPR is nothing like that

  34. singpolyma

    Instead it makes hell for small git hosts and other stuff like that and Meta rolls on like nothing happened

  35. root

    > Instead it makes hell for small git hosts and other stuff like that and Meta rolls on like nothing happened I think part of this problem too is that Meta doesn't actually care. The GDPR can and will fine meta for violations, but they just chalk it up to "cost of doing business" and keep on doing the same things.

  36. Zash

    For something else; this new mailing list https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mimi/OX18OIj9wdNkcvZvYgqwFYI6ICM/ might be of interest to people here