# EU Stalls on Social Media Interoperability, Disappointing Privacy Advocates Users consistently seek greater control over their social networking experiences, aiming for improved privacy and enhanced flexibility. Interoperability between major platforms like **Facebook** and **TikTok** offers numerous benefits that could address these concerns. Imagine the ability to switch to a platform with superior privacy practices while still engaging with friends who remain on larger networks. This could also empower independent apps with stronger privacy controls and offer users genuine choice. These are the untapped possibilities that the **European Union's** 2022 **Digital Markets Act (DMA)** could have delivered. ## A Missed Opportunity for User Empowerment However, in its first review of the **DMA**, announced in April, the **European Commission** decided not to extend the interoperability mandate to social networking, offering no deadline or timeline for its enforcement. The Commission stated there was "no clear demand" from users and businesses for social networking interoperability and deemed it "too technically complex" at present. This decision effectively grants a pass to **Big Tech** platforms that have actively resisted interoperability over the past two years, erecting numerous hurdles for users seeking more freedom. This outcome is a significant disappointment and a missed opportunity by the Commission. Interoperability is crucial for dismantling one of the biggest barriers users face when attempting to leave tech giants' platforms: the dilemma of choosing between a preferred platform and staying where all their friends, communities, and customers reside. ## The DMA's Core Mission and Inconsistencies The **DMA**, which came into force in 2024, aims to foster greater choice for EU users and encourage competition and innovation. It achieves this by compelling so-called "gatekeeper" platforms, such as **Meta**, **Apple**, and **Google**, to open their ecosystems to competitors. The regulation already does much to integrate competing services and devices with the ecosystems of these very large online platforms. Notably, it even mandates interoperability for messaging services, despite the significant technical and privacy challenges involved. Given this, the Commission's argument of complexity as a shield against social networking interoperability seems inconsistent. The internet itself operates on highly complex interoperable systems. Existing approaches like **ActivityPub**, the decentralized networking protocol behind the "**Fediverse**" (which underpins networks like **Mastodon**), demonstrate viable models. While the **DMA** shouldn't mandate a specific protocol, it can certainly require meaningful interoperability outcomes. ## Debunking the 'No Demand' Argument The claim of a lack of demand for social networking interoperability also falls flat. Users desire the ability to move across platforms, control the content they see, and avoid being tied to a single platform. However, achieving this is difficult when platforms do little to open their ecosystems, and now the **DMA's** enforcer is unwilling to compel change. Demand for alternatives at scale will only materialize once users see tangible progress towards interoperability – something the Commission has the power to facilitate. By adopting a "wait-and-see" posture, the Commission's decision to monitor how these services evolve only harms users and further entrenches **Big Tech** incumbents. ## Resistance and the Future of Digital Fairness The **DMA** is intended to center on the rights of technology users, paving the way for an internet experience where individuals control their software, easily find the best products and services, and can switch platforms without sacrificing social connections. However, **Big Tech** continues to resist the **DMA's** openness requirements. For example, **Apple's** plan for opening **iOS** devices to rival app stores includes onerous "junk fees" and conditions that make it effectively impossible for competitors to use. **Meta's** response involves a "pay for privacy" system, where users who decline **Meta's** surveillance must pay to use the service or face exclusion. The compliance of these plans with the **DMA** remains under review. Nowhere in the **DMA** does it state that social networking companies can install a toll booth for users seeking to benefit from privacy rights. The forthcoming **EU Digital Fairness Act** presents another opportunity to protect users from such practices by explicitly declaring them unfair. The Commission has responded to these developments with investigations, preliminary rulings, and fines. Yet, users continue to miss out on greater choice and flexibility in how they communicate and connect online.