[random3]

I think META like many other "service providers" don't yet realize, that it's becoming trivial to roll your own and all we need is a protocol. And arguably there are many. You can then use your existing social graph (anyone remembers this term? lol) to chat. Your mom and granddad won't roll their own, but publishing an open service that uses FB openID and API while delegating to the open protocol is really not that hard. Browser local storage may not be ideal, but it's a good placeholder until something better can be implemented.

[seanw444]

It's not the technology design that's that important. It's the network effect, and peoples' default trust in megacorps over volunteer projects. Both of which cannot be solved with just a protocol.

[Terr_]

Half the problem is "felony contempt of business model", where the legal system is wielded against anyone who would create pro-consumer tools.

[random3]

part of the network effects is building the graph. If you reuse the social graph that's already in your FB account you're merely replacing the messaging layer. This lays over on the presumed assumption that there's a problem to begin with

the other problem with the network effects is a business problem. There's is no business problem here though. If you maximize compatibility without caring to own anything several problems disappear.

[dzdt]

This would be a natural role for the Post Office to take on, to provide a neutral ad-free, privacy-respecting messaging platform accessible to all.

[nicoburns]

It was always relatively trivial to roll your own messaging service. And open protocols exist (and predate messenger)! The thing you can't (easily) replicate are the network effects.

[esafak]

There are already alternatives to these products; what would adding some more change?