Communication tools deserve the same infrastructure scrutiny applied to highways, water supplies, and power grids, yet digital services have long been treated differently, according to a post on digital independence by Gultsch. While Europe has begun emphasizing digital sovereignty, the challenge lies in avoiding replacement of American corporations with European ones, instead pursuing collective ownership through open standards.
The distinction matters significantly. Even privacy-focused alternatives like Signal, Wire, and Threema operate as “walled gardens with no escape,” according to the analysis. These platforms do not interoperate with competitors, creating vendor lock-in despite their ethical positioning. Open-source software addresses spyware concerns and validates encryption, but cannot protect users if a company shuts down servers or ceases operations in a region. True infrastructure requires systems where self-hosting is structurally possible but not mandatory—similar to how housing can be individually owned or collectively managed through cooperatives.
Open standards, developed through multi-stakeholder organizations like the IETF and W3C, force different entities with competing interests to cooperate rather than allowing single vendors to dictate protocols. This contrasts sharply with proprietary API approaches, where companies maintain tight control over modifications and specifications.
The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), which originated over 25 years ago as the Jabber project, exemplifies this difference. Matrix, a more recent alternative developed by Element (formerly Riot and NewVector), offers similar features like self-hosting and federation but maintained as a single-vendor platform. Despite the open-source codebase, the Matrix specification remains under Element’s control, with key Foundation leadership positions held by current and former Element employees. Getting outside contributions accepted is described as “notoriously difficult.”
JMAP, a modern replacement for IMAP and SMTP Submission, started within Fastmail before being brought to the IETF, demonstrating how ideas can originate in organizations but mature through formal standard-development processes. This approach resulted in protocol improvements and now supports at least three independent server implementations with numerous independent clients. Matrix, despite emerging around the same era as JMAP in 2014, remains dependent on one predominant reference implementation that is “notoriously resource-intensive,” making self-hosting difficult for smaller organizations. Element sells closed-source plugins to improve performance, perpetuating vendor dependency.
Key facts
- XMPP originated over 25 years ago as the open-source Jabber project before becoming a formal standard
- Open standards enable multiple vendors to provide compatible implementations, preventing lock-in to single providers
- Matrix, developed by Element, maintains tight control over its specification despite having open-source code, contrasting with XMPP’s standards-development approach
- JMAP, which went through IETF review, now has at least three independent server implementations, while Matrix remains dependent on one primary implementation