Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Facebook Communications Open Source

'An Open Letter To Meta: Support True Messaging Interoperability With XMPP' (xmpp.org) 31

Posted by EditorDavid from the sending-a-message dept.
In 1999 Slashdot reader Jeremie announced "a new project I recently started to create a complete open-source platform for Instant Messaging with transparent communication to other IM systems (ICQ, AIM, etc)." It was the first release of the eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol, and by 2008 Slashdot was asking if XMPP was "the next big thing." Facebook even supported it for third-party chat clients until 2015.

And here in 2025, the chair of the nonprofit XMPP Standards Foundation is long-time Slashdot reader ralphm, who is now issuing this call to action at XMPP.org: The European Digital Markets Act (DMA) is designed to break down walled gardens and enforce messaging interoperability. As a designated gatekeeper, Meta—controlling WhatsApp and Messenger—must comply. However, its current proposal falls short, risking further entrenchment of its dominance rather than fostering genuine competition. [..]

A Call to Action

The XMPP Standards Foundation urges Meta to adopt XMPP for messaging interoperability. It is ready to collaborate, continue to evolve the protocol to meet modern needs, and ensure true compliance with the DMA. Let's build an open, competitive messaging ecosystem—one that benefits both users and service providers.

It's time for real interoperability. Let's make it happen.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'An Open Letter To Meta: Support True Messaging Interoperability With XMPP' More

'An Open Letter To Meta: Support True Messaging Interoperability With XMPP'

Comments Filter:

  • Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @02:42PM (#65268217) Homepage
    Why should Meta do that if others like Apple, Microsoft and Google are not using it. And let's not forget people use Whatsapp even for (video)calling, those should also be standard for any 'true messaging interoperability' if you want to go forward with one standard.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thecombatwombat ( 571826 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @03:40PM (#65268317)

      Because due to EU regulation, Meta has put forth an "Interoperability Plan."

      The letter is essentially a response to that plan.

      RTFA remains as relevant as ever . . .

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I'd have thought that the most likely protocol for them to adopt would be RCS. Google and Apple already support it. WhatsApp is already tied to your phone number. It's got E2E encryption, the same as WhatsApp, even the same protocol (Signal).

        • RCS is built on the ETSI/GSM mobile stack though? Yes, I know, it's designed to run over IP because LTE is IP, but it's still made with the assumption you're using phones to communicate with one another. I mean, they could register as mobile phone operator but it seems a weird protocol to start using.

          And do we really want Facebook integrating their system with the modern equivalent of SMS?

          To be honest, there aren't any good options IMO. RCS is still under development in practice (E2E encryption etc have onl

  • XMPP is great. -- see the period there. Pretend it's a mic-drop.

    Various platforms offer some form of encryption. Singal offers true E2EE. What's up (META) offers encryption to their server and down to the other side (so Alice to server is encrypted and server to Bob is encrypted and sometimes Alice to Bob is encrypted but it all goes through server and META collects meta-data no pun intended).

    Apple does their thing and I'm not knowledgeable about that. -- this means nothing I say here applies to Apple

  • Why XMPP? It doesn't even support any modern form of SSO There are plenty of other interoperable messaging standards. There's Matrix, they could easily develop a federated revision of the Signal protocol, and if you really wanted to abstract it, you could represent an IM conversation as a series of emails (see Delta Chat for an encrypted email-based messenger).

  • AOL (Score:3)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @03:49PM (#65268333)

    I don't understand why my AOL Mail doesn't work with my Facebook messages. AOL has everything I need and Facebook should just work.

  • I agree in theory, but spam (in particular from scammers) is such a big problem on pretty much all platforms that I prefer messaging networks to be reasonably closed off where possible. I know there are federations solutions that could work in theory but Whatsapp works pretty well now and I don't think we really need this.

    Google did XMPP for a long time of course, I don't remember it being much of a loss when they turned it off.

  • If SMS transport is so secure, and protocol is so secure, how come we get so much crap and spam over it ? When does someone is going to invent a protocol that guarantees sender is who he/she is ? People are loosing millions everyday from these scams.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      When does someone is going to invent a protocol that guarantees sender is who he/she is ?

      That's the whole point of TLS certificates.

  • The X (basically) stands for XML. Didn't XML die about 15 years ago? Everyone in the world uses JSON now, ever since idiots kept getting hacked due to shitty XML parsers and vulnerabilities (billion LOLs attack comes to mind). Anyway, my point is kids nowadays don't know what XML is. It's like asking them to use a rotary phone. Just use JSON, everyone knows it.

    Besides, JMPP sounds cooler.

    • Didn't XML die about 15 years ago?

      That's like saying "Didn't journaled file system die 15 years ago?" Tell us you are not what has happened in IT in the last 15 years without telling us you are not aware of what has happened in the last 15 years. XML did not die. It has been very common in every company I have worked that exchanges data especially complex data.

      Everyone in the world uses JSON now, ever since idiots kept getting hacked due to shitty XML parsers and vulnerabilities

      "Everyone" is an overstatement, and it is not a false dichotomy where a company must choose between JSON or XML exclusively for everything. JSON is fine for passing data between web

  • One should not issue an open letter but send the observations straight to DG Competition of the European Commission. DMA enforcement only works if competitors send their market facts about obstacles they face.

    See also: CASE DMA.100097
    Meta – Number Independent
    Interpersonal Communication
    Services - Messenger -
    Art. 7(1)

    https://ec.europa.eu/competiti... [europa.eu]

  • First, XMPP is and always has been crap. Try to implement an XMPP client or server from spec. Come on... I dare you. The only thing XMPP did right was to make a more cryptic spec than SIP.

    Next. Why would Facebook want to? Where's the ROI?
  • Meta hasnt even touched their own in-house messaging platforms. Whatsapp x FB Messenger integration was announced around 5 years ago IIRC, also later on Instagram DMs were supposed to join this WA x Messenger integration as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.

Close