Re: DMA amendments

> Am 04.01.2022 um 00:55 schrieb Nick Doty <ndoty@cdt.org>:
> 
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 12:15 AM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote:
> I finally got around to reading the DMA amendments, and have listed what seems especially relevant to us below.
> 
> Thanks for doing this, Mark! It's very useful, especially for those of us not already following the text closely. And merry christmas/happy new year!
> 

Full ack, thanks again, Mark! And the same to everyone …

> The amended Article 2 offers a definition for interoperability:
> 
> > (23a) ‘Interoperability’ means the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been exchanged so that all elements of hardware or software relevant for a given service and used by its provider effectively work with hardware or software relevant for a given services provided by third party providers different from the elements through which the information concerned is originally provided. This shall include the ability to access such information without having to use an application software or other technologies for conversion.
> 
> It also pulls web browsers into the definition of 'core platform service'. I'm not sure how that's related to our work, but personally I find it concerning.
> 
> I wasn't entirely clear what the implications were of being a "core platform service": would that mean that interoperability or portability (or maybe just other non-preferencing style requirements) would apply to web browsers?


So, this was something I also tried to understand: The differentiation between “core” and “auxiliary”-service …
Basically in terms of Facebook I first thought, the stream/timeline would be the “core” while libra might be an “auxiliary”-service if the regulators would not have acted on this already.
But this was wrong. Basically it means everything which is in the core or “daily use” of internet users. 
So it is social networking, dating-, meeting- or videosharing-platforms. In addition, this also includes numerous digital services such as OTT communication services, online search engines, operating systems, cloud computing services, and services in the area of advertising.
Regarding web browsers, I would personally disagree: 

I found it very very important that web browsers will be tackled.
They have the power to say which protocols the user trusts and so web browsers are most hindering for ActivityPub. 
a) The registerProtocolHandler is broken (see my demo at IWC Brighton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W70wd56i0Bg&t=2051s) 
b) The browsers decide themselves what URL schemes the user can trust 
a) and b) means it is very bad for ActivityPub while things like the tel: and geo: schemes are nice for android.
It is really time that we get a trustworthy “me in the browser” …

>  
> 
> As expected or predicted, chat and social networking are very directly called out as requiring interoperability. That seems to confirm one conclusion of our last call that we should start gathering resources on those topics in particular (even if they're not the "easy" ones).
Full Ack !!!