They later reversed the ban on my account, but kept the server deleted because they maintained that we advocated cheating. Again, we develop anti-cheat moderation software.
In my last contact with them, I was told that that it was up to us to moderate the server better too. If any user posted cheating related material, they would of course ban the server for terms of service violations anyway (this essentially inverts the typical idea of "safe harbor" protection that traditional websites have).
The problem with not using Discord is that they successfully captured the gamer and game market. As a game related tool, all of our users are on Discord. It's a shame that one company was able to do this.
It's easy to hate on Discord's practices but it's worth remembering that they're on top because their project is legitimately good.
When discord released it didn't even have a Ctrl+f function for a long time. It still doesn't have chat logs on the user end, the permissions system is bad and audio quality is mediocre. On top of all of that, because they don't allow self-hosting it means that discord ultimately controls your conversations.
It caught on because it went viral. The service they offer is good, but the lack of privacy and no self-hosting make it disappointing.
Basically it was a ripe market with extremely bad products. I don't think Discord is anything amazing (seems fine for the most part), but they're clearly significantly better than what existed when they launched.
The main thing that discord did was combine voice with the chat side of things, and with per user chats and history. A lot of people don't know that mumble has a pretty decent html capable chat, but it's the history searching, dynamic rooms etc that set discord apart. Mumble still has the superior voice capabilities (simultaneous multiroom, easy permission, hierarchical, etc)
I have put most of my hope in mattermost to do murmur integration to solve this problem.
In the meantime I find myself considering trying to get everyone back on irc+mumble.
edit: Also, just have to say I bet the gov loves having a single place to send all those NSL's... cough hint cough
But the default answer to the question "how do I have seamless transition between my desktop and my phone" for IRC remains "pay for a shell/bnc, run irssi in screen, etc" which is of course a UX nightmare.
Discord has a buttery smooth onboarding process.
Similarly for Android, the most reliable notification method is using the Google Play Services servers.
Saying is easy. But for some reason, it still doesn't exist.
With IPv6 one would suppose that it would be easy to keep the same address given that there is virtually no chance that anyone could accidentally be assigned it.
Doesn't really solve the problem.
The "modern" answer is "don't do that". There is a time to play social games, there is a time to do what you are doing, and you should spend some time talking to yourself too.
Thus the success of discord.
The answers to changing user tastes is not to proclaim their tastes are wrong. That's the attitude displayed by a lot of IRC server operators and prolific IRC users, and it's that refusal to adapt that's driving IRC into obsolescence.
Maybe those people are ok with an ever-dwindling userbase, and if so that's great. But I'd like to see a Renaissance of IRC to the detriment of proprietary walled gardens like slack and Discord.
While I think it could have been said better, we all need to quit feeling the need to have everything so perfectly connected all the time and feeling frustration when our tech gets in the way.
You mean it's easy to forget about Discord's practices because their product is good.
Seriously, you're arguing that they get to do whatever because "their product is good"??
Do I have to spell out how egotistical this attitude is?
Discord has been by far the best of any app I've ever used, because I give someone a link, they click on it, they immediately join the channel, and it immediately works. They're now in the voice chat. They have great defaults.
I don't care how annoying the individual settings are, or if other apps do that better. What they have are defaults that work out-of-the-box better than everyone else.
I have had more issues with Discord than any other VOIP.
Where do you draw the line? Are jokes involving death also out of the question?
I’m not a big fan of rape jokes, but is there some specific list of things which are unacceptable to joke about in 2020?
I don’t doubt that there are heaps of virtue signalers who’ll pretend to be utterly shocked though, fuck those people.
It’s okay to joke about death, even if the world is full of people who have had traumatic experiences with death. It’s okay to joke about traumatic experiences, that’s just a perfectly normal coping mechanism. (Although I have a hard time reading “ear rape” as a joke about rape)
Is there a reason why you think that women would be especially susceptible to this besides some bizarre sexist fantasies of yours?
What you’re suggesting here is far more offensive than any rape jokes could ever be.
I think not allowing the distribution of cheat software even for benevolent purposes on a platform so widely used by a general audience is probably a reasonable choice.
The actual slippery slope is that making excuses for companies that act inhuman just allows companies to act more and more inhuman.
Precedent matters when it comes to what you host because it does put a significant burden on discord to distinguish what content is malicious and what isn't once they allow malware to be distributed on their service. If the platform becomes infested with people spreading malware for games users or other game developers will avoid it, harming discord's business.
If you want to have a community of people that shares content that violates the terms of service of a lot of existing software then you'd probably be wise to host that platform yourself rather than expecting a game chat company to facilitate the sharing of game-breaking software for you.
This seems like kind of a red herring, because it doesn't address the question of what behavior is reasonable. You're throwing out a generic talking point that would make essentially any behavior "reasonable" if we actually accepted it as a justification. This is like getting caught cheating by your spouse and trying to justify it with "It's a free country!" It doesn't matter, because your legal obligations are not the point.
> Precedent matters when it comes to what you host because it does put a significant burden on discord to distinguish what content is malicious and what isn't once they allow malware to be distributed on their service. If the platform becomes infested with people spreading malware for games users or other game developers will avoid it, harming discord's business.
This is not saying Discord's treatment of OP was reasonable, it's just speculating that Discord are unreasonable because it's cheaper to be that way. I agree that's probably true. And I'm saying I think we should carefully consider whether we want to deal with companies that have that particular set of priorities. Maybe the answer is yes for you, but a lot of people and businesses have been burned by similarly inhuman customer service from (for example) Google, so I think it is at least worth recognizing unreasonable behavior.
You're right. And this is another reason why Discord should not be used.
It would be like saying that police aren't allowed to speed when they have their lights flashing. No. The exception has been granted. You can't use the police's exception when you speed because you aren't operating with that granted privilege.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube but never Gmail.
Do you have an example? I don’t recall ever seeing that. I’ve seen mostly for other services.
 - https://www.mumble.info/
 - https://github.com/mumble-voip/
 - https://www.mumble.info/blog/mumble-1.3.0-release-announceme...
You can make whatever security arguments you want, but it's going to drive away users. And then they'll still be using passwords anyway, on whatever chat service they use instead of Mumble.
The question then becomes how to motivate the average gamer to jump onto a different messaging platform.
>Regardless of whether or not you are the kind of person who mocks or ridicules people—you should be able to use your communications tools to mock and ridicule people, if you so wish. These are normal, acceptable things to do in society. Fuck censorship.
I would guess that for the vast majority of Free Software projects, not having illegal topics discussed on the chat and not having people who mock and ridicule people are features not bugs.
it's not just illegal things that are kicked off. If you violate a third party company's terms of service, say making bots for Team Fortress 2 (a valve video game) then you'll be banned suddenly as well. And Discord is no stranger to banning things that are not illegal but just controversial like, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/cvv5da/meta_rguns_dis...
In terms of privacy: they send a tracking request for every single thing you do in their client. Clicked on someone's profile, clicked on a channel, clicked on a server, etc. The URL was named /track before but they renamed it to "/events" recently (but it's still a POST with no response).
Their desktop client is literally a remote administration toolkit, it has full access to FS (electron app) and it loads every script from their servers. They can just add something like require('fs').readFileSync(process.env.HOME + '/.ssh/id_rsa').toString() and send this to their servers, and you won't even notice that (since it doesn't require an update on client because the client is just a browser with full permissions that loads obfuscated code from their servers every time you launch it).
(Not defending it on the other counts, though. If I wanted a platform for anything controversial or privacy-sensitive, I wouldn't trust Discord or any other centralized, unencrypted service.)
I think it's reasonable to call it a RAT because it executes arbitrary remote code AND has those permissions.
I'm not sure how you come up with a good distinction.
No, because it's opt-in and it's explicitly needed for the purposes of a dev/nightly build. This is as opposed to a voip client which needs unrestricted access because... they want to be able to run A/B tests on uninformed subjects?
There's still room for problems... the auto-update could deliver a special version for special people or deliver a version that has special code targeted at run-time, but it's not as easy. And I'd love to see work on minimizing problematic updates as well.
We should avoid and shame the programs that do that. This is literally a backdoor.
Like shit, I have 3rd party mod managers for video games that are exclusively built to do such that
I have Discord installed, because unfortunately that's where my friends are. However, it cannot access arbitrary parts of the file system because it is installed via flatpak; it only has access to ~/Downloads and ~/Pictures.
No, a program with an 'update' feature built in is much less offensive than a program who's entire code is remote and new every time but still has local privs.
There are no alternatives. Bandwidth costs money, and P2P is deadly. That's why discord exists in the first place.
Pretty sure it has been /science for at least 2 years.
And that is why you encrypt your SSH keys with a passphrase, use a Keychain, etc. Discord isn’t unique in its ability to read file on the FS. Pretty much anything can do that.
Nah, pretty much anything except proprietary software has a higher chance of being written by people I trust and packaged by people I trust and probably audited by me and other people, and is not capable of loading executable code from any server after installation.
And a lot of projects have codes of conduct explicitly to prohibit participants from mocking and ridiculing others, in fact.
(As a note, I refuse to install the actual Discord client on my PC, because it's default behavior includes "detecting" accounts you can link on other software on your PC. Aka, it, by default, noses around in other apps on your PC for data.)
For software that works under wine, I guess it wouldn't be too hard to simply set a wineprefix and do it like that, but that is a bit of a hack, and wouldn't work with a lot of software.
However, I use Virtualbox and/or VMware Player a lot, and Hyper-V doesn't play well with others, so I can't use any features of Windows that depend on Hyper-V virtualization.
I personally use a UWP app that embeds Discord's web interface. It's surprisingly serviceable.
You can use it via tor, so it can’t access a persistent record of your location history, as Discord can. The public logget doesn’t log DMs. Likely, anyone can join without being forced to give up PII.
As for the CoCs, that’s a good thing! That’s the right way to do it. Demanding that your users enter into an absurd legal agreement with a third party to be able to participate is not.
"Phone numbers are bad and shouldn't be used but also you should use Signal!"
"The only thing I used my account for was DMing a link to a bunch of people and they banned me in a way I could contest because it looks like spamming!"
"For notifying people about stuff you should use electronic mail but don't notify them more than once every two months!"
> You should not use services that can rat on you and your friends to the cops.
in a post about [checks notes] FOSS software development, puts things in a certain light.
FWIW I'm privacy-conscious myself. If the author had just made a general effort to point out the privacy implications of using Discord, that would be one thing. Instead he made a contrived effort to connect it to FOSS development - arguably one of the least-private activities one might be doing online - and then went on to call Discord altogether "unacceptable", instead of just saying "don't assume that what you say on Discord is private".
If you're referring to what I think you are, then no, his "crime" was publishing a product that was not allowed to be exported to the public (effectively exporting it). You're statement is equivalent to serving poisoned food and saying you were prosecuted for the crime of owning a restaurant.
No matter if you agree with the export ban or not, it was a law and Zimmerman broke it. That's what he was prosecuted for.
* - except for things like Signal, Tor..., which are illegal some places, but they probably wouldn't even consider Discord in the first place
Creating (or in this case distributing) anything that's against the law could get you in trouble with the law -- kind of how it works.
Taking your use of "secret" to mean "private," because no one was discussing "secret communication channels":
This isn't actually true; a lot of Free Software projects have private mailing lists.
I honestly have a hard time seeing eye to eye with the idea that private organizations have to let users of their platforms do whatever they want. It strikes me as representing a rather solipsistic concept of freedom. One could argue that the specific restrictions Discord is making are shitty. It certainly sounds to me like they are, and one could then mount an argument that people should steer clear of them because they are acting shitty. But doing shitty things is not necessarily the same thing as violating a moral obligation.
IOW, it's not necessarily because I think Discord is actually going to tell Joseph McCarthy how often I pick my nose. (You'd be amazed how rarely I manage to work that into group chat conversations about code style, anyway.) It's more the principle of the thing.
The part about ridicule/mocking is an example of why Discord’s legal agreement is unreasonable, not advocating for the ability to mock or ridicule people.
The tools should not enforce censorship.
It's not without its criticisms:
It has also been estimated that the above statement is poppycock (just now.)
I just feel like saying this here: I don't find that censorship itself is a problem. Self-censorship, for example, is generally not problematic, and everyone does it. A great example of voluntary self-censorship is with swearing -- it's not illegal to swear in public, but most people choose not to do it. That's not to say self-censorship is always problematic, but simply that it is not inherently oppressive. Sometimes, it's the right thing to do.
However, in larger group contexts, censorship earns legitimacy when it is agreed upon by those who are participating in that group. If a group of people agree to not swear in the context of their organization, then by all means it is fair for them to censor. In broader forms of censorship, such as the example of FOSS projects censoring toxic and illegal behaviors, as long as it is decided democratically, then it's absolutely a feature and not a bug.
Do you think that a 3rd party should be able to judge and ban you at will for something that you say in a group chat when everyone else in said group chat is fine with it? I presume that the author of the article is not fine with it, which is why they suggest to avoid discord. What would you do in their place?
Yes. If I were running Discord and learned that there was some Klan group advocating hate against black people, I'd shut it down – even if everyone in that chat was fine with the discussion.
It wouldn't be beneficial to me to have my platform be a host for that content, and it's not beneficial to society for me to facilitate hateful people easily connecting with each other.
The internet is not private by default; it's public by default.
I haven’t even had the ability to participate whilst maintaining my location privacy.
In retrospect, I should not have included that portion of the essay. It was used as an example of why demanding users agree to an unreasonable legal agreement that demands they give up basic rights is not a good hoop to make them jump through, not a defense of that sort of behavior. I thought that part was clear but I guess it wasn’t.
I wish the folks saying things were not acceptable would work on options that had the benefits they wanted.
Steve jobs didn't say - locked down phones with no access to the web in unacceptable, he built a better phone (and was rewarded very well).
He didn't say the way digital music is sold is stupid - he built a better music buying experience that let you authorize multiple devices to play your music etc.
I took some time to reflect on why OSS wasn't the default for these messaging tools, rather than proprietary alternatives — and what it would take to make more users use OSS alternatives:
> As Slack has continued to grow, open source developers have had lengthy debates about using it rather than IRC. For some, the fact that Slack is closed source and a walled garden makes it unsuitable when building projects that are open.
> I’ll take a different approach: in the age of software, why is open software not more competitive for many products used by non-engineers and what can be done?
What Open Source Can Learn From Slack
Setting up Mattermost on a VPS isn't hard.
It's also $0 software, in that it being free software and open source, you can simply and legally patch out their license checks and recompile, if you so wish.
Ease of hosting is one of the very biggest advantages to something like Slack or Discord.
The main thing that worries me about is discord is their revenue model... I just don't see how they're making money, and they keep on raising money.
There are a few good alternatives like zulip , matrix , discourse , Rocket Chat , or just plain old irc.
Although discourse isn't really a chat application but more of a open source forum software.
: You can get around this by messaging relevant information to yourself. Or just saving things locally, like a weirdo.
I never said anything about Slack or Discord being better/worse than each other.
Of course git itself is an open tool, so the repos are totally interoperable, but the OSS community's dependence on GitHub for issue tracking, PRs, etc. has always made me uncomfortable.
It’s popularity is due to marketing and abusing some social phenomena, not merit.
“Free” refers to the software license of the source code. That is it.
The maintainers of a free software project don’t even have to accept contributions outside of their organization or club.
Private companies that use all kinds of proprietary communication tools regularly contribute to free software. Are all of Red Hat’s internal conversations about Fedora guaranteed to make it into the public?
People are also perfectly capable of having private conversations about contributions to free software projects. These conversations don’t ever have to be made public. Again, only the code license is what makes a piece of software free.
So if you don’t like a project’s method of communication, my advice would be to not contribute to it. It’s the project’s own risk of deterring potential contributors, not yours.
I find it hilarious that someone would find themselves feeling entitled enough to tell a bunch of unpaid open source developers how to communicate with one another as if that someone were their boss at a company. The only place where I’m told what communication tools to use is at work, where I’m paid to comply.
I feel like this should be obvious to anyone who has ever read a blogpost or editorial, but the author isn't literally commanding all free software projects to stop using discord as if he has that kind of authority, he's making a recommendation and then goes into detail about why he thinks this way, ending with some alternatives. It's bizarre seeing someone react to an article like this with offense not because of any of the content or points, but for... not showing enough deference in their title?
Hopefully the free software ethos police doesn’t come knocking on my door because I used GPL 3.0 without having the right mindset.
However if you said "I'm creating this project because I care about user freedom" someone might point out "Great. Well, since we're on the same page as far as user freedom, let's take a look at the tools we're using..."
Yes, private conversions about contributions to free software projects are possible and are sometimes desirable. But, messages on the official channels for communications should normally be public; people can (and should) of course still use their own private communication as needed, too, but does not mean you cannot have a public one too.
They are making a moral argument against discord. If they said it was not acceptable for free software projects to go around hitting people on the head with clubs would that be entitled?
Tin foil hat paranoia isn’t enough for me. The author is assuming their door is gonna get busted down and they’re going to get arrested over their discussions about a bug fix for an open source widget.
I’m telling people what they should not do: that is, don’t discriminate against people who insist on privacy.
Choosing to use Discord does that, so people who don’t want to discriminate should not choose to use Discord.
I’m also offering them alternatives that don’t discriminate against those people, so that they can make better choices if they decide that they don’t want to be the kinds of projects that discriminate against segments of their userbase.
This person isn't being wronged. They just don't like the software other people chose to use in their projects which have nothing to do with the author of the blog post!
If someone tells you they're suffering racism you should listen no matter how it sounds to you. If someone tells you they don't like that you're using Slack and that you should not use it, you're right to tell them to sod off until they can be polite.
> I’m telling people what they should not do
Those two things are the same.
You might want to read this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Many people in the free software movement find censorship in general to be abhorrent. (That’s one very good reason, for example, why emails you receive that might be spam go into a special folder, instead of being silently deleted without you having a option to choose to see them if you wish. Your email server could just delete them! The fact that it doesn’t was a deliberate design choice to avoid censorship.)
Lots of people's email servers do, in fact, silently delete quite a bit of email, because the signal-noise ratio in the world of email spam is so bad it swamped the attention budget of users (and in some cases the storage budget of service providers) ages ago, even with a spam folder attached.
You want your email server to censor all entirely-obviously-over-the-top spam messages, for example (e.g. SA score >20). Most people want Facebook and Discord et al to censor spam postings.
However, when censorship veers from basic utility into editorializing (e.g. Facebook and Instagram's algorithmic prioritization/deprioritization in user feeds, Discord banning the legal and regulation-compliant /r/guns subreddit's Discord, or Facebook banning posts with male nipples, or Youtube banning instructional/educational videos about computer security, or Apple and the Taiwanese flag, or Gmail spam-foldering emails from smaller email providers not part of the deliverability cartel, or a million other examples), then it becomes a social issue and a potential problem that we need to address.
Email that is not 100% not-a-false-positive should never be silently trashed.
So I clicked a link on their GitHub page for some online IRC client.
I had a conversation it was great. Except for the part where I wanted to paste some code and it didn't format. And then I was recommended to use pastebin and paste a link.
Then I went away for a bit. Came back later and my computer had rebooted while in standby. (It's an old laptop and is a bit flaky with resume from standby)
I returned and click the link for the IRC chat. And I couldn't see the previous messages.
And they had a link to a log but it wasn't working.
And apparently the server doesn't log by default.
Look, no offence to IRC. But this is some crazy bullshit.
Like Discord, Slack, Gitter, Teams. Whatever. Isn't going have this issue.
At the end of the day people want to communicate and get their stuff done.
For a free software project, sure, using opensource tools is a great idea.
But sometimes faffing around with none core things just wastes everyone's time. Especially with they could instead be working on features and bug fixes.
Matrix channels can even be bridged with IRC using bots, allowing people to use their tool of preference.
Slack, Discord & Gitter don't monetize data either, so that's a pretty weak argument.
If you had used a persistent IRC system (like quassel) then you'd even be "online" permanently, whether or not you reader-client was running.
IRC has different semantics and goals than "modern" chat/msg systems. Even though they overlap quite a lot, it's a mistake to think that one is a substitute for the other.
Surely a donut tastes better bare. Not good for your heart as well. Now that most people don’t have a kitchen it seems like a problem to me as well.
As noted by another commenter, the fact that you know how "most modern chat/msg apps work" doesn't mean that they all have good UX - it means that they all have the same UX, and you've already learned it.
Not-installing-nor-configuring-anything is such a vastly superior UX that we need not unlock any more levels of discussion. Discord's web app saves easily accessible history remotely and has sane code-formatting defaults. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen that for the default configuration of an IRC client on any distro. For OP's use case of "just let me communicate with the devs for a bit, please" that's the ball game as far as UX is concerned.
 You can apparently use Discord without saving the history. But the user has to explicitly go off the path that the interface provides in order to do that.
No doubt this is why Slack makes desktop and mobile app versions of its service, rather than rely on the browser. I'll give them credit - the browser is an option at least.
Yes, IRC has no code-formatting defaults because the culture of IRC is that you do not post code to a public channel. Would it be useful to sometimes paste directly into a private channel and not lose formatting? Sure, but compared to the formatting and highlighting options of pastebin and the like, it's not really a hardship and may even be a benefit.
I use Discord, but I live and work inside IRC. Discord feels like a candy-filled store compared to IRC. They both have their uses, but I am fairly certain that our IRC channel (both the public and private ones) would be less useful and accessible if we moved them to Discord.
I would be very interested to hear of some such tools?
shall I go on?
because if you were raised as i was in the internet of the mid-90s, logs and real names are weapons, and we don’t do that to our friends.
Public logs are another matter.
I find in many ways it’s worse to hand wave and say there’s a policy against something where no one can actually control that policy.
Also, many people don’t understand that things can still be logged or tracked. So the policy example given can give many people false thoughts.
An example is Zoom video chats. It has a record feature. The record feature once on turns on shows a blinking recording icon. In one instance people got a bit upset about it. They were even more surprised and couldn’t completely grok that any one at any time can screen record their own desktops without any one ever being notified or knowing. So Zoom letting you know is actually better.
On the Ardour's project's main IRC channel, it makes absolutely zero sense for the vast majority of people in the channel to be able to drop off the channel for 2 days, and come back and read everything they missed. The social expectations and norms there don't make this a sensible or reasonable expectation.
Contrast with "modern chat systems" ... in most of their uses, this is an entirely reasonable expectation because you are a _member_ of the group, and simply being offline isn't a reason for you to miss messages.
In our case (Ardour), we have private IRC channels where this sort of expectation is more reasonable, and we run a Quassel server to provide "always-on" messaging for people who are "members" (i.e. people for whom it's sensible to expect that they never miss messages).
But the expectations for chat today has changed a lot
Discord (not to mention Slack) will simply continue to be the lowest friction choice until a FOSS alternative comes along that is free to use, comes with rich moderation tools, supports fine-grained notification settings, supports offline history without additional effort, supports rich bots, has a mobile client that shares state with the desktop clients, and already exists on most people's desktops.
So to impact the open source communication landscape, the standard that needs to be exceeded is Slack and Discord, not IRC.
It's also a bit of a chore to even identify how to get a server. Matrix.org points you towards other implementers, Riot.im pushes you back to matrix.org for a login, and to "Modular" for a server.
This is kind of the opposite of low friction and ease of use.
It seems pretty slick from a technological point of view, but a bit of a mess from an implementation point of view.
Now, I looked up each of them, and found that they all rely on hosting your own server, or some kind of strictly limited "community" plan. The managed (and for Mattermost even self-hosted) servers all hide features (such as message history, rich moderation tools, or support tickets) behind a paywall.
These are solutions aimed at enterprises, and they use open source (or open core) licenses as the foot in the door. It's commendable that they offer to let you host the server yourself, but I would not call it "simple" to do so.
I believe that this high friction and low install base will make them effective non-starters in the open source development space.
Happily this is not true of Zulip! Open-source projects get free hosting on zulipchat.com, with the exact same features as our corporate customers. Quoting from https://zulipchat.com/for/open-source/ :
> The hosting is supported by (and is identical to) zulipchat.com's commercial offerings. This offer extends to any community involved in supporting free and open source software: development projects, foundations, meetups, hackathons, conference committees, and more.
(I work on Zulip.)
I know nothing about the other systems but this isn't true for Mattermost. We run Mattermost ourselves and it does indeed offer message history and moderation tools, they're part of the open source Mattermost version. I can't think of any feature that I miss from it, to be honest.
How can I assert this? If they were not a minority, they would have sufficient clout behind them to push the project onto a FOSS chat solution.
At least that's my experience.
The project owner(s) picked a platform for their communication and presumably all current contributors are fine with the choice, and then some third party is coming along and demanding that the entire project change their entire communication system to accommodate this one person? How in the world is it hypocritical to tell said person to take a hike?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have made an open source discord client years ago when discord was new and I was being asked to use it regularly, and if that panned out then this blog post wouldn't have even existed. But the company has always been hostile to the idea.
I personally don't like Discord for lots of reasons, but the original blog post and other comments supporting it are basically arguing that project owners have to change things in order to accommodate some people who have an issue with Discord. My point is that no project owner has any obligation to change things for any random potential contributor who is making demands.
Sure, Discord being less slimy and/or having other client options would be great! I personally use IRC a lot partially for these reasons, but I object to someone telling other people how to run their projects.
This is not related to what I said at all. No one is being forced to use Discord. But Discord absolutely is forcing the project owners to get all the other contributors to accept the discord terms if they want to use it. That is the entire reason they make users accept the terms before they even sign up. Some users don't care about being forced to do this. Some users do, and if the project owners want to accommodate those people then yes, they need to change things. None of this is really up for debate and you seem to understand it well, so it's unclear to me what your point is. It also is very strange to me that you're now blanket objecting to these type of requests when you mentioned before that it's easy for the project owners to just say no thanks.
IRC can be part of a solution but it's not a solution on its own.
Properly implemented, I've had much better availability with this sort of solution than with Slack. I've seen multiple hour outages of Slack services just within the past 6 months, it's well below four or five nines reliability.
Slack/Discord/etc. fix the problem for everyone.
Trying to community-build on IRC just seems like an exercise in masochism. I think most projects and their users deserve better than that, and it's hard to do worse than IRC.
That's not really how it works, and if we take history as an example, most of what you say can be used for profiling and targeting potentially. So no, the above argument misses the point, completely.
We can do better as educated folks. A good starting point to learn bout privacy would be to read -at least a bit- of Daniel J. Solove's "The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age". Also, learning more about history and what happened with PII (personable identifiable information) in WW2 is important.
There's nothing uneducated about having a differentiated view on privacy, which this blog post has not, it's mostly just an incoherent rant.
There's nothing wrong with not having any expectation of privacy for discourse that is supposed to be public. I don't care if my open source development discussions are public because they're intended for a public audience. Same goes for any discussion I have on a discord.
People with an educated mindset are able to discern what information deserves what level of privacy, rather than larping as privacy advocates to stick it to the man or whatever the motivation is.
Despite being a strong privacy advocate, I didn't find the post particularly compelling. For the vast majority of open source projects, discussion of anything illegal would be considered off topic, and there is no expectation of privacy since all discussion is public record. Having those discussions being public and searchable is a valuable feature.
Does that mean I am against good tools that enable private discourse (like Signal)? Of course not! Some open source projects probably have a need for private discussion channels. I'm all for them using them. But to then extrapolate from that: "don't use Discord to discuss your open source JS widget library" doesn't make sense to me.
I should have been more clear. I just read through the comments here in HN and tried to make an observation about the level of the conversation that the HN community (is it a community?) seems to be having. Mainly wanted to express that I hoped that we could all learn more about privacy in this day and age, given that it's (or should be) a fundamental matter that relates to most of what we work on these days (at least as people working in tech).
There's a very long chasm between "You can get the software running, and have it respond on a port to requests" and "Providing a mission critical service that your project relies on".
The key word here is service. It is often drastically underestimated how much effort is required to have a service available, especially at any sort of scale.
Free/Open Source software is irrelevant as soon as you are providing a service, because by design, the only people who have control over the service, are the service operators, and the only people who really know whats running in production are the people who deployed the code.
Given that, the only choice a user has is whether or not to trust whomever is providing the service, regardless of whether or not the software they are running is free/open source, or proprietary/in house software.