Skip to content
Fair Software logoFair Software logo

Messenger

Messenger finally encrypts your messages by default. Almost everything else — ownership, metadata access, and profits — still runs on Meta's terms.

About the assessment

Messenger's headline feature is real: default end-to-end encryption for one-to-one chats since December 2023, independently key-verified by Cloudflare since late 2025. Beyond that, the story weakens quickly. The app is closed source with no independent security audit, only an ongoing key-verification log and a standard bug bounty. Metadata and Meta AI prompts still feed Meta's ad-targeting system, with no opt-out for most users worldwide. Meta Platforms Ireland was fined a record 1.2 billion euros in 2023 for unlawful EU data transfers, and child-safety groups objected to the encryption rollout. Messenger runs only on Meta's servers, cannot be self-hosted, and now requires a Facebook account to open a chat in a browser after Meta shut its standalone site in 2026.

Strengths
  • Default E2EE for 1:1 chats/calls since Dec 2023
  • Cloudflare independently verifies encryption keys
  • Full JSON export of messages via Meta's tool
  • Meta reports net-zero ops, 100% renewables
  • No ownership change; built in-house since 2011
  • 14+ years of continuous, active development
Weaknesses
  • Closed source; no independent security audit
  • Owned by Meta; zero independence or oversight
  • Metadata still feeds Meta's ad-targeting system
  • Meta AI prompts train ad models, no US opt-out
  • Free tier is itself the monetization mechanism
  • No self-hosting; no Linux app; no F-Droid build
  • Web access now requires a Facebook account
  • Meta fined 1.2 billion euros for GDPR violations
  • Child-safety groups objected to E2EE rollout
Fair Score
35Poor
We evaluated 574.0.0 (iOS) on Aug 2026
using Fair Score 1.0 | See disclaimer
By section
Privacy & Data
27.3%
Openness & Transparency
0%
Pricing Model
28.6%
Ownership & Portability
40%
Independence & Ethics
40%
Longevity & Community
100%
See detailed evaluation ↓
LicenseProprietary
PlatformsWeb, iOS, Android
Launch2011
DeveloperMeta(USA)
MessengerGo to app

Fair Score

Click on the headers to expand/collapse
1
Privacy & Data
Where user data lives, how it is protected, and whether it is used to train AI models.
27.3%
1.1
Where is user data stored?
User's own device by default; data synchronization is optional and controlled by the user
6
EU/EEA, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway
5
Other democratic countries with strong data protection laws
4
USA, China, countries with weak/uncertain data protection, or unknown location
0
//
1.2
Is end-to-end encryption available for user content?
Yes, full end-to-end encryption for user content by default or as an option
6
Encryption at rest and in transit only (no E2EE)
3
No meaningful encryption
0
//
1.3
Does the company sell or share user data with third parties?
No, never (except for strictly necessary processors under data-processing agreements)
6
Only anonymized or aggregated data for analytics or research
3
Yes, personal or behavioral data is shared or sold for advertising, profiling, or similar purposes
0
//
1.4
Does the product train AI models directly on user data (including prompts, files, metadata)?
No, never; or only with explicit, granular opt-in, off by default, and clearly explained
4
Yes, but there is a clear, easy opt-out that does not degrade the core service
2
Yes, by default, with no meaningful opt-out (or only buried/obscure settings)
0
//
Section score: 6/22
2
Openness & Transparency
License, auditability, open governance, and independent security assurance.
0%
2.1
What is the source code license?
OSI-approved open-source license for the core product
10
Open core (core open source, key features proprietary)
8
Source-available (can be inspected, but the license is not truly open)
4
Closed source (no public access to source)
0
//
2.2
Has the software been independently security-audited or certified?
Yes, a recent independent audit or relevant certification (within the last 3 years) with at least a public summary
5
Yes, but the most recent audit or certification is older than 3 years
2
No known independent audits or certifications
0
//
2.3
For open-source projects, is the governance model documented and open to community participation?
Yes, governance is documented (e.g., maintainers and decision process), with contribution guidelines and a code of conduct
1
No, or not applicable (closed-source or no documented governance)
0
/
Section score: 0/16
3
Pricing Model
How users pay for the product, whether pricing relies on exploiting user data, and how fair and transparent prices are across regions.
28.6%
3.1
What is the primary pricing structure?
Free forever: no purchase, subscription, or data monetization of any kind
6
Lifetime license / one-time purchase (no forced ongoing subscription for core use)
5
Annual subscription (fair, predictable)
4
Monthly subscription
2
"Free" but monetizes user data (ads, profiling, data sales)
0
//
3.2
Is there a genuinely functional free tier (without monetizing user data)?
Yes, a fully functional free tier that does not monetize user data
4
Yes, but a limited free tier
2
No meaningful free tier
0
/
3.3
Is pricing transparent with no dark patterns?
Fully transparent pricing, clear plans, no manipulation
4
Minor issues or slightly confusing elements, but no clear manipulation
2
Dark patterns present (e.g., tricking users into higher tiers, hidden charges, obstruction when canceling)
0
/
3.4
Does the product use fair regional pricing that reflects local purchasing power without exploiting any region?
Clear, documented regional pricing based on local purchasing power
3
Some regional adjustments, but not clearly documented
2
Flat or opaque pricing with no fair regional adjustments
0
Not applicable
/
Section score: 4/14
4
Ownership & Portability
User control over data and vendor lock-in, including export, self-hosting, offline use, cross-platform availability, and accessibility.
40%
4.1
Can users export ALL their data in an open format?
Yes, full export in open formats (JSON/CSV/XML, standard open formats)
6
Yes, but only in a proprietary format (requires the vendor's tools)
4
Partial export only (not all data, or heavily limited)
2
No meaningful export
0
//
4.2
Is self-hosting available?
Fully local: runs entirely on the user's device, no server or hosting required
6
Yes, a full self-hosting option for the entire product (or a feature-complete edition)
5
Partial self-hosting (some features require the vendor's cloud)
4
No self-hosting option
0
/
4.3
Does the software work offline?
Yes, fully offline for core features
3
Yes, with sync (works offline and syncs when online)
1
Requires an internet connection for core functionality
0
/
4.4
Is the app available on multiple operating systems, including at least one non-proprietary/open platform?
Available on multiple platforms, including at least one open or non-proprietary platform (e.g., Linux, *BSD, F-Droid)
3
Available on more than one platform, but only within closed ecosystems or with significantly reduced functionality outside the main platform
1
Available on a single proprietary platform only, with no public plans or APIs enabling broader access
0
//
4.5
Does the product demonstrate basic accessibility support (screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, captions, etc.)?
Clear, documented accessibility support (policy or page) and evidence of basic WCAG-style features
2
Some accessibility features are present but undocumented or clearly incomplete
1
No visible accessibility features and no public commitment
0
//
Section score: 8/20
5
Independence & Ethics
Ownership, independence from Big Tech, stability over time, and whether the company shows responsible behavior in ethics, advertising, and environmental impact.
40%
5.1
What is the company / project structure?
Non-profit, cooperative, or bootstrapped indie project (no external investors)
6
Small private company (no Big Tech parent, no large VC control)
4
VC-funded company
2
Owned or controlled by Big Tech (a large tech conglomerate with a surveillance-capitalism model)
0
//
5.2
Has ownership changed significantly in the last 3 years?
No ownership change
4
Minor change (e.g. small investor, internal restructuring)
3
Acquired by private company (non-Big-Tech)
1
Acquired by Big Tech
0
//
5.3
Does the company publish clear, public policies on responsible use, advertising, and AI?
Clear, public ethical policies covering harmful uses, ads, and data/AI
3
Some relevant ethical policies, but partial or limited
1
No clear public ethical policies beyond the legal minimum, or existing policies are contradicted by the company's actual practices
0
//
5.4
Does the company provide public information or commitments regarding the environmental impact of its infrastructure?
No vendor-operated infrastructure at all: zero environmental impact from operations
2
Clear public information or commitments (e.g., green hosting providers, use of renewable energy, sustainability report)
2
Some indications (blog posts, partial mentions), but no coherent or up-to-date policy
1
No public information or commitments regarding environmental impact
0
//
Section score: 6/15
6
Longevity & Community
How long the project has been actively maintained and how healthy and engaged its user and contributor community is.
100%
6.1
How long has the project been actively maintained?
5+ years of continuous maintenance and releases
5
2–5 years of maintenance
3
Less than 2 years
1
//
6.2
How active and engaged is the project's community and contributor base?
Active community (forums/chats/issues), regular releases, visible roadmap
5
Maintained but quiet (few public contributors, infrequent releases)
3
Low activity, long gaps between releases, "abandoned" feel
0
//
Section score: 10/10