They could work on an interoperable protocol, that's the very clear core component of my complaint which I brought up completely spelled out, think you need to read it once more to help your reading comprehension: the main issue is making those apps not interoperable through a common protocol so I can jump ship when the client goes to shit without losing access to the network of people I care about.
You can read it again:
> I would prefer using a communication app that relies on a common protocol and can interoperate with different clients, so I could move clients in case one starts to act shady (in this case, Telegram can be a bit shady at times), those don't exist anymore, XMPP is basically dead and nothing has replaced it.
It is clear that you would prefer that. I would prefer pie in the sky, too. If growing an audience using a common interoperable protocol is so easy, why don't you just do it? Start with the people you care about.
Please, read Hacker News guidelines before commenting again:
> In Comments
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
You can read it again:
> I would prefer using a communication app that relies on a common protocol and can interoperate with different clients, so I could move clients in case one starts to act shady (in this case, Telegram can be a bit shady at times), those don't exist anymore, XMPP is basically dead and nothing has replaced it.
Is that clearer? It's hilarious you missed that.