Lots of folks are asking for the source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2347 has the details. "Require gatekeepers to proactively put in place certain measures, such as targeted measures allowing the software of third parties to properly function and interoperate with their own services;"

@matrix is this real???????

@matrix Almost to good to be true. At least after fighting end-to-end encryption.

@matrix
I can't find the source for this?

@tc https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2347

@matrix
I don't think interoperability in this context means what you make it sound it means. They want to force big platform providers to allow third-parties to integrate with their platforms as good as the providers own software does.

For example, Slack would be required to make sure that their API allows to create a bot with all the features that "slackbot" has. One main reason for Slacks success is that they provide a very powerful API. Hard to put any blame on them wrt interoperability.

@larma @matrix At start I thought so too. After the press conference I understand the following:

There are core services and you can offer upon those also other services. The regulation would require interoperability to allow others to compete with you on those extra services.
If my core service is a monopoly chat system, I don't have to interoperate. If I add upon it a payment system I would have to open up the payment also to other payment providers instead of binding everyone to use mine.

@larma @matrix So to stay with the whatsapp example I guess you can only enforce companies that have several services, that they cannot prefer their own chat system and e.g. integrate whatsapp directly into facebook (replacing the fb messanger) without allowing an integration of other chat services into facebook.

@dukethereal @larma @matrix At first, this sounded like Twitter would have to go either #ActivityPub (they DID intend something like this not too long ago, BTW) or broke.

But now it sounds like this won't change anything for them. They can even continue blocking third-party clients by means of undocumented "API" changes (does Twitter even have one?) because that's still part of their core services.

@MartinG @larma @matrix
Also see: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/eus-digital-markets-act-there-lot-room-improvement

@matrix that sounds more like prohibition of prohibition of third party clients or something similar, although the wording is vague.

@matrix wow, interoperability = universality = free and open for everyone on the planet

@Gaffen from a user perspective GDPR might generally be annoying hoop to jump through. from a company perspective GDPR forces you to think carefully about your data hygiene - it triggered huge changes and improvements to Matrix's privacy model, for instance (https://matrix.org/blog/2019/09/27/privacy-improvements-in-synapse-1-4-and-riot-1-4/ etc).

@matrix Yeah, no doubt - especially in the case of organisations like yourselves. The problem is that a lot of the time it amounts to informing users what is boing taken from them in longform and it getting dismissed as an annoying popup - just like the terms and conditions we are collectively expected to digest but realistically never do.

I'm genuinely glad it's resulted in good affirmative action on your part; but I can't help but think this is the exception, not the rule.