[mcjiggerlog]

> With the new WhatsApp interface mandated by the DMA, any BirdyChat user in the EEA will be able to start a chat with any WhatsApp user in the region simply by knowing their phone number.

Unfortunately, as it's been implemented as opt-in on WhatsApp's side, this isn't really true. Honestly that decision alone means it's kinda dead in the water.

[prmoustache]

> any WhatsApp user in the region

The regional limit makes it pretty much useless. The only reason I keep a whatsapp account is to stay in touch with my family in law and a few relatives who live in another continent.

[hei-lima]

In countries where SMS isn't as widespread as it is in the US, the use of WhatsApp is much more common.

I live in one of those countries, and I don't think I've ever had to use it to communicate with someone on another continent. I think most of its use is simply local, for your community or friend group.

The downside for me is basically the lack of appeal for a non-tech user (like my parents) to voluntarily want to stop using an app they've been using for, what, 10-12 years? It’s not that big of a deal; everyone uses Instagram or Facebook (maybe)... WhatsApp is definitely going to make the process difficult, too.

[joe_mamba]

>The regional limit makes it pretty much useless.

Sounds like an easy fix. Europe just has to convince the rest of the world to ditch the 15 year old popular US apps ingrained in pop culture and with network effects, and have them switch to their own EU made apps, this way we can all communicate together. :hugs: Until then, let's keep chatting on $US_APP so we can debate on how we're gonna achieve that switch.

[zjaffee]

I'm originally from the US, but where I live now, whatsapp functionally replaced email for a lot of different types of communication (that would be an email in the US). Recruiters text me on whatsapp about jobs, I can ask for a prescription renewal through it, and I get support from everything ranging from a government agency to customer support for things from businesses, ect.

[yapyap]

> The regional limit makes it pretty much useless. The only reason I keep a whatsapp account is to stay in touch with my family in law and a few relatives who live in another continent.

… useless FOR YOU. not useless overall. its just that you in your limited use case cannot use it.

[bambax]

> pretty much useless

To you maybe. Not everyone has overseas contacts.

[krick]

I'm not sure what they mean by "in the region", but my case is even more extreme, as pretty much the only time I'm forced to use whatsapp is when I'm travelling and need to communicate with all sorts of hosts who annoyingly expect me to have whatsapp. After returning home I always delete it.

So I am usually "in the region" with those guys, but since "region" probably means "similar phone number" it will be useless to me too.

[krzyk]

It is an unique feature.

Most people communicate with the ones in their region. Even when going on vacation most people can afford only to travel around their own continent.

[dfajgljsldkjag]

It's better than nothing. If you have a different app and want to talk to your friend who uses whatsapp it's much easier to convince him to toggle a setting than to download a different app.

[InsideOutSanta]

Yep, 100% malicious compliance on Meta's part. I hope they get punished for this.

[mlrtime]

How so exactly? They can say they are keeping conversations secure from 3rd parties.

[thisislife2]

Could you clarify - What has been implemented as opt-in by WhatsApp to act as a hurdle?

[odo1242]

Receiving message requests from third-party users. So you have to get the person you know to flip a toggle before they get the message.

[wohoef]

Just opened my Whatsapp settings and "Third-party chat requests" is on by default (From the Netherlands). Although to actually receive messages you do have to activate this feature.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

How the opt-in is considered acceptable, that's a toothless resolution

[tonyhart7]

because its EU only ????? you want it to be enabled by default while only certain amount of people want to use it

[moffkalast]

I thought the stupid name was enough to kill it tbh. I'm not telling anyone they can call me on "birdychat" lmao.

[lpcvoid]

While I also don't think Birdychat is a good name, you could also argue that "Whatsapp" is a weird name for an app billions of people use.

[urbandw311er]

> any BirdyChat user

And how many of these are there? Anyone?

[zoobab]

"opt-in"

FAIL

[raverbashing]

> as it's been implemented as opt-in on WhatsApp's side

Chatting with anyone has always been opt in from the point of the receiver, so I don't get your point?

[dmitrygr]

I understand my agreement with WhatsApp - i read it and all. I have no agreement with that other app. I do not know what they would do with my data. Until they give me a privacy policy and i approve it, they indeed should have none of my data. Opt-in is the correct solution.

I am not even sure how this is GDPR-compliant (that app is European and thus must care about GDPR). They do not have my permission to have/handle my private data, and GDPR does not allow WhatAspp to hand it over without my permission either... My name (which whatsapp exposes simply with my phone number) is considered PII under GDPR and

[lxgr]

What a strange way to think about a telecommunications service. By the same logic, shouldn’t there be a privacy policy for regular old phone lines? Who knows which third parties are between you and the person on the other end!

And speaking about the other end: I have bad news about all the data you share with untrustworthy contacts on WhatsApp…

Quite practically, anyone that enables backups (which WhatsApp heavily nudges people to do) uploads a copy of all your messages and media sent to them to a cloud provider you have no privacy agreement with.