The EU is forcing WhatsApp to open up. This is actually intended to break its market power and help small providers. But they have something against it.
It would be practical, but is it safe? The opening of WhatsApp sparks discussions. Pictured: Participant at a meta-conference in Mumbai, India, September 20, 2023
Francis Mascarenhas / Reuters
Who does not know that? You’re sitting on the bus looking for a friend’s address, but you’ve forgotten which chat you received it in. Was it a signal? Threema? Whatsapp? Telegram? Or just a normal SMS? Until you find the address, you open several apps, click through several search functions – and possibly miss your bus stop.
The EU wants to make life easier for its citizens and, with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), is forcing large platforms like Whatsapp to create an interface to smaller chat services like Signal or Threema. From March 2024, Whatsapp must enable its users to be contacted by people on other chat apps if the other chat apps require this. In good bureaucratic language this means: interoperability. To find the friend’s address, it would then be enough to open an app and search for her name; It doesn’t matter which app she used to send the message.
With the regulation, the EU wants to break the market dominance of Whatsapp, which belongs to the Meta Group. So far, Whatsapp has benefited from the network effect: more and more users are registering because those they want to exchange messages with are already registered on the platform. In this situation, it is difficult for smaller services to attract new users and compete with Whatsapp.
Threema and Signal do not want to be tied to WhatsApp
But small platforms that could actually be happy about the rule are skeptical. Martin Blatter, founder and CEO of Threema, has already decided not to connect his chat app to WhatsApp. “We don’t want to take the security risk that Meta poses,” says Blatter when asked.
WhatsApp is a “black box”. The platform does have data protection regulations, “but no one can prove whether these are implemented as promised,” says Blatter. Threema, on the other hand, is data-efficient, which means that, if possible, no user data is collected. And secondly, open source: The program codes are publicly visible, independent software experts can check whether Threema actually does not collect any data to measure its users.
“We know that Meta doesn’t exactly handle its users’ personal data squeamishly,” says Blatter. He therefore launched a survey among Threema customers. The result of this confirmed his stance against collaborating with WhatsApp.
It sounds similar with Signal. The collaboration with WhatsApp would ultimately worsen the privacy of Signal and its users, the non-profit foundation behind Signal explained in the summer of 2022. “Other apps that do not have the same data protection standards as Signal would have access to large amounts of user data. This data could then be used or sold in ways that are inconsistent with Signal’s mission and values.”
Telegram and other communication apps have so far refrained from commenting.
Whoever sets the standard has the power
Carmela Troncoso, Professor of Computer Science at EPFL, understands Threema and Signal’s argument. But she also says that there is no concrete technical solution yet. It is therefore not yet possible to assess how sensitive a collaboration with WhatsApp would be for data protection.
But she fears that Whatsapp will unilaterally specify the conditions for cross-platform collaboration and thereby expand its market power even further. “If smaller platforms actually start working with Whatsapp, they become dependent: Whatsapp can define standards that the smaller companies have to follow.”
And if Meta defines the standard, it is questionable whether the best possible standard will prevail for society. A chat service that is private, data-efficient and interoperable would be desirable. So far, Meta has not excelled at such selfless solutions.