That doesn't mean end-to-end encryption is pointless, if that's what you're implying.
This allows us to identify the active speaker, keep some statistics on who spoke in the meeting, and rely on mediasoup's fantastic media router ("e.g. hey, we missed a keyframe there, can you give one to me?")
(edit: omit needless words)
Insertable streams are coming, along with e2ee through media routers. The Jitsi folks are doing great experiments there, and I'm happy they have taken the lead.
This is actually a good thing.
> at the cost of recording
You can use an external application. Inconvenient? Sure, but worth it for e2ee.
Bonus: Unlike your application Jitsi is foss and does not require a centralized account.
Insertable streams are new, and less proven.
An honest question, do you visit sites served by Cloudflare? Is point-to-point encryption okay for your use cases there, or do you have security concerns that require e2ee for your communications?
I would actually be fine even with raw http for said sites.
My biggest question about Zoom's implementation is, how can we trust it? They haven't proven themselves to be trustworthy, so it's a big ask for the world to believe their latest pitch.
1. Zoom: is actively lying right now, has lied in the past, and has had numerous security breaches which were easily avoidable.
2. Team.video: This Doug W. Brunton fellow may be lying, but at least is not currently taking an opportunity to lie, and seems to have a decent grasp of the tradeoffs involved in end-to-end versus point-to-point.
You're literally taking a pro-lying stance right now. Is that really who you want to be?