← Back to context

Comment by dmitrygr

14 hours ago

Because until today that IS what it meant! Are you claiming that "pray i do not change the deal further" is a sane approach?

6 comments

dmitrygr

Reply
lxgr  14 hours ago

I just don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation of a telecommunications tool, so yeah, I think it’s a fair change well within the norms and expectations of an instant messenger.

You should get to control how/ to whom your data is distributed, but also requiring these recipients to only use software and services of your choosing seems excessive. Platform lock-in at this point seems like the much greater harm.

I could see the case for a small indicator in the contact details that they’re using a third-party client, but anything more (green bubbles?) would be counterproductive.

  • mlrtime  12 hours ago

    It's not requiring, thats the point of BirdyChat, right? You just have to opt-in to use it.

  • dmitrygr  14 hours ago

    i did not ask for green bubbles, nor did whatsapp implement that. they let me opt-in to communicate with questionable clients and i am here for it.

    • jodrellblank  11 minutes ago

      Do you also wish you could only get telephone calls from people using American made handsets, and that your email client asked you before receiving emails from other email clients, and that you couldn’t get SMS’s from other smartphone manufacturers without opting in one at a time?

      Being able to reject spam , regions, specific people, specific topics, all makes sense. Wanting to approve/reject the program used to make the connection is a pretty useless way to segment communications - how will you determine “questionable” clients, and what when there’s a person you want to chat with and a person you don’t both using the same client?

direwolf20  12 hours ago

The recipient is already using third-party code. I am using a Samsung OS, which is not from Meta, to see your messages. Do you object to this? I also have the YouTube PiP overlay layer in front of your messages.