close
https://upload.movim.eu/files/932f3ec89d91ccc293caf66588c2f8baec5cb7d5/aWAyJOVEXJ32/IMG_20220509_111724.jpg

(This is how to get in touch with me through the Olvid #messaging app.)

https://invitation.olvid.io/#AwAAAHcAAAAAWmh0dHBzOi8vc2VydmVyLm9sdmlkLmlvAABa1aWJhiYkG_vn7MbmThuU7I9r-8XbEuB2vC29Zw_heQF0KWP63nADwR17hEElikXBCs93XSh536XqZ06pL8L8VwAAAAATTWF0aGlhcyBQb3Vqb2wtUm9zdA

#poujolPost #mathias #mathiasPR #mPoujolRost #Poujol_Rost #contact #messenger #tchat #clavardage

  • Ga chevron_right

    New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other, smaller platforms - NOT using proprietary, but hopefully interoperable standards instead

    Danie van der Merwe · news.movim.eu / gadgeteerza-tech-blog · Friday, 25 March - 13:24 · 1 minute

It's a great idea as WhatsApp, iMessage, and others are creating more and more fragmentation and walled gardens for users who have to install 10+ apps to message their friends elsewhere. But this why open (not insecure) interoperable standards exist in the first place.

Rather than letting each provider now go create their own API, this is the opportunity to ensure open standards exist for each technology so that everyone can reach others. If RCS is to be the open standard for messaging, then let iMessage and WhatsApp adopt that. That way a message from one app can reach users on iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram and more. Each app will still have its own UI and own bells and whistles that differentiate it from the others. As users, it will mean we are no longer locked into an app that prevents us from leaving.

Such data interchange standards do already exist such as XMPP, XML, RCS, and others. XMPP for example can enable encryption between the end-points so that need not be the issue here. Maybe this will also force the bigger players to help improve these interoperability standards.

It is quite clear that Apple, Facebook, and other big players had no intention of opening up interoperability with their competitors, and we can see already how this harmed consumers on both sides. It is therefore only likely that some legislation will achieve what BigTech has failed to do on their own. Clearly the few consumers that exercised their freedoms to leave platforms, had no real effect on the those running the platforms, so market forces were also not achieving any beneficial change for users (the lock-in effect for mainstream users was just too strong).

See https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22995431/european-union-digital-markets-act-imessage-whatsapp-interoperable

#technology #BigTech #interoperability #messaging #EU

  • Ga chevron_right

    Jami and Bridgefy are two cross-platform (inc iOS) Peer-to-Peer messaging clients that bypass censorship

    Danie van der Merwe · news.movim.eu / gadgeteerza-tech-blog · Monday, 14 March - 20:21 · 1 minute

Whilst Briar is an excellent P2P messaging client (requiring no Internet) it still does not yet run on iOS. So to be able to connect to everyone, you want to consider clients which do connect as widely as possible. As with all P2P clients, your friends all need to also have the same app installed. Usually these clients require zero personal information (not even a phone number) to be used.

Bridgefy is designed to work on local Bluetooth (max about 100m) during natural disasters, a protest, at large events, at schools, etc. It will create a mesh network, so one or more other peers can help transmit messages further. See https://bridgefy.me/.

Jami also is a P2P client, but it uses encrypted TCP to communicate. It can be installed on Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, macOS, and Android TV. It will connect over the Internet to any friend, with no servers required (there is no website that can be blocked or intercept messages). It does not work across Bluetooth, but it can work on a local area network (without Internet) if everyone is on the same network, e.g. a Wi-Fi network. So yes, typically something like Jami will work perfectly in Russia or Ukraine across an Internet where servers are being censored or blocked. See https://jami.net/.

These are pure messaging apps though, so if you want P2P blogging you'd want to consider RetroShare, Secure Scuttlebutt, Aether or other similar service that works without any websites or servers at all.

#technology #messaging #privacy #censorship #P2P

  • Ga chevron_right

    A very brief history of every Google messaging app - What a decade and a half of confusing services can tell us about the future

    Danie van der Merwe · news.movim.eu / gadgeteerza-tech-blog · Tuesday, 22 June, 2021 - 13:55 · 1 minute

Over the past 15 years, Google has introduced more than a dozen messaging services spanning text, voice, and video calling. This week, the company’s efforts culminated in the general availability of Google Chat, a combination of Slack / Discord-style rooms with more traditional messaging.

It’s the sort of announcement that might have been expected to bring some consistency to the company’s muddled messenger messaging, but — as is traditional for Google in this area — there’s plenty of confusion to go around.

It got so bad for me that I have abandoned using Google's chat apps a while ago. Personally, I think it's way better to have a known brand name for your service, and you keep iterating and improving updates to that. The way Google (and even Microsoft) has approached messengers and chat apps has just been all over the place, and they don't seem to stick long term with anything. When they do, in the case of Microsoft, look what has happened with Skype. I have close to zero interest in anything new that Google or Microsoft launches. If you want innovation and focus, just think of start-ups like Zoom, WhatsApp (original), Instagram (original), Skype (original P2P version), Android (original).

See https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/21/22538240/google-chat-allo-hangouts-talk-messaging-mess-timeline

#technology #google #messaging

  • Be chevron_right

    Curated Server Lists

    eevvoor · pubsub.movim.eu / berlin-xmpp-meetup · Tuesday, 8 June, 2021 - 18:49 edit

Emus and melvo will present an approach to provide curated lists of XMPP servers based on specific hard and soft criteria. This project should improve the onboarding of newcomers to XMPP clients and XMPP network. Clients can implement the list and provide suggestions to the user, also based on the criteria or requirements provided. You are invited to take a look at the project repository.

Yes, the talk will be held in English!

When?Tomorrow – Wednesday, 2021-06-09 18:00 CEST (always 2ⁿᵈ Wednesday of every month)

Where? Online, Link provided in our Berlin-Meetup MUC xmpp:berlin-meetup@conference.conversations.im?join .

See you then!

#jabber #berlin #meetup #kaidan #community #xmpp #server #provider #onboarding #messaging #xmpp-providers

  • Ga chevron_right

    Facebook, Microsoft and Google used open XMPP chat once, until they had enough users and then raised their walls

    Danie van der Merwe · news.movim.eu / gadgeteerza-tech-blog · Wednesday, 27 January, 2021 - 07:29 · 1 minute

Seems many have forgotten (did not know) that in the earlier days of all three of these Big Tech that they used XMPP to easily lure new users in so that those users could easily maintain contact with any friends outside of their services. Once their numbers had really swelled they each announced shutting down their XMPP capability and at the time as users we did not fully realise the impact as many / most of our friends back then were using Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Little did we know that this wall (loss of XMPP) would create the stickiness to keep most users captive as they would no longer have any easy chat facility with their friends who did not move.

Facebook brought out Messenger, Google Talk became Google Hangouts, and Microsoft pushed users across to Skype. They each decided to build their own walls instead of seeking out ways to maintain interoperability. Imagine today if Gmail could not mail someone on Microsoft Outlook, or someone with a private mail server?

Yes they could have used XMPP as the "X" stands for extensible. XMPP has numerous XEP standards defined for extended functionality for voice, video, files transfer, and much more. Thing was while there was one standard for e-mail, XMPP was never declared THE single standard for messaging. This is what levels the playing fields and allows all services to interoperate.

But Big Tech does not want standards like this and although many governments have declared certain interoperable standards, they really have not enforced them at all. It's us the consumers who suffer as we are walled off from one another and have our choices dictated to us. We need more international open standards declared and as consumers we need to choose services that embrace those open standards. This will lower the cost of doing business too, and make archiving access more resilient to the closure of businesses.

Screenshot below from the Wayback Machine archive as the announcement has long gone from Facebook's dev site dated 2015.

#technnology #interoperability #openstandards #XMPP #Messaging

  • chevron_right

    WHO butchers asymptomatic COVID comments. Here’s what they meant

    news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Tuesday, 9 June, 2020 - 20:36

WHO Technical Lead Maria Van Kerkhove attending a virtual news briefing on COVID-19 from the WHO headquarters in Geneva on April 6, 2020.

Enlarge / WHO Technical Lead Maria Van Kerkhove attending a virtual news briefing on COVID-19 from the WHO headquarters in Geneva on April 6, 2020. (credit: Getty | AFP )

An expert with the World Health Organization on Monday made brief comments about asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 that sparked a firestorm of confusion, backlash, and criticism.

Some public health experts were quick to lash out at the organization for poor messaging . Others tried to clarify what the WHO expert might have been trying to say . And still others quickly impeached evidence-based strategies to combat the pandemic virus.

On Tuesday, the WHO responded with a live Q&A on social media to address confusion and lingering questions about transmission. In it, the WHO expert who made the confusing comments on Monday tried to clarify the issue and add context and caveats. But the response may still leave some confused and frustrated.

Read 48 remaining paragraphs | Comments

index?i=5dMdiHTK_sI:-2F2r-_IZOY:V_sGLiPBpWUindex?i=5dMdiHTK_sI:-2F2r-_IZOY:F7zBnMyn0Loindex?d=qj6IDK7rITsindex?d=yIl2AUoC8zA