4 ms·

I don't understand what moving to slack is going to give them, which is inevitably where this is going to lead (or a similar web-based chat). IRC has the same

I don't understand what moving to slack is going to give them, which is inevitably where this is going to lead (or a similar web-based chat). IRC has the same tools for banning users as Slack, if not more powerful as you can ban ranges etc. You can require people to register with an email in the same way slack does, although I'd argue being anonymous and being able to talk without an account is one of IRC's best features. I can't say I ever went on Mozilla's IRC, but I have spent almost 20 years on other IRCd's. Seeing it be replaced, just to be able to use rich messaging breaks my heart.

josteink 7y ago
> You can require people to register with an email in the same way slack does, although I'd argue being anonymous and being able to talk without an account is one of IRC's best features. As someone from the “old” and free internet I agree, but there seems to be a new generation of users who seem to have the ability to perform censorship as a core requirement (although they prefer to call it “governance”). It’s sad to see the direction they are pulling the internet, one of the few truly free platforms which has ever been created.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  How would you have them deal with harassment and spam, or do you not believe it is as much of a problem for them as they claim it is?
  - spamthrowaway 7y ago
    I wrote a short reply to this, and then HN for whatever reason flagged it as spam and wouldn’t allow me to post. I think that provides a great meta-comment supporting my stance on not allowing too much central control and censorship.
  - mrweasel 7y ago
    I seriously doubt that both harassment and spam is a much of a problem as Mozilla, or others make it out to be. That's not to say that it's not a huge issue for a subset of people and it should be dealt with, to some extend. If someone want to harass you online, they will find a way, regardless of what governance or censorship you put in place.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      Interesting. Do you have experience moderating a comparable community, or what leads you to believe that it's not as much of a problem as they make it out to be? I'm sure it will always be possible to find a way to harass someone. But do you believe putting barriers in place has no effect on the amount of harassment that targets have to endure? What do you think of the computer security concept of "defense in depth"?
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    Usenet kill file style support for chat clients, optionally with a subscription option to shared blocklists like uBlock Plus supports.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      Couldn't you trivially defeat that by randomizing your IRC username? Blocking email addresses does literally nothing against email spam, why would chat be different?
      - ohithereyou 7y ago
        More of what I was thinking was a killfile controlled by the user, uploaded to the server when updated, that would allow the server to filter messages. You could allow shared blocked lists and support wildcards with whitelist exceptions. In this way, you can block everyone and whitelist who you want, so changing your IRC user name does not help. In most cases, unless the person connects from somewhere else, specifying a sufficiently wildcarded netmask for the host part also prevents the IRC nick change.
        laughinghan 7y ago
        Doesn't blocking everyone except a whitelist defeat the purpose of having your IRC chatroom open to the public?
ignoranceprior 7y ago
IRC isn't really anonymous or private. Your IP address is visible to everyone by default.
- xvrc 7y ago
  IP addresses are public information.
- deanclatworthy 7y ago
  Which is incredibly easily to get around with a bouncer and shell company in eastern europe or pretty much anywhere. We're not talking state-actor anonymous, but anonymous enough.

josteink 7y ago

> You can require people to register with an email in the same way slack does, although I'd argue being anonymous and being able to talk without an account is one of IRC's best features. As someone from the “old” and free internet I agree, but there seems to be a new generation of users who seem to have the ability to perform censorship as a core requirement (although they prefer to call it “governance”). It’s sad to see the direction they are pulling the internet, one of the few truly free platforms which has ever been created.

laughinghan 7y ago
How would you have them deal with harassment and spam, or do you not believe it is as much of a problem for them as they claim it is?
- spamthrowaway 7y ago
  I wrote a short reply to this, and then HN for whatever reason flagged it as spam and wouldn’t allow me to post. I think that provides a great meta-comment supporting my stance on not allowing too much central control and censorship.
- mrweasel 7y ago
  I seriously doubt that both harassment and spam is a much of a problem as Mozilla, or others make it out to be. That's not to say that it's not a huge issue for a subset of people and it should be dealt with, to some extend. If someone want to harass you online, they will find a way, regardless of what governance or censorship you put in place.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    Interesting. Do you have experience moderating a comparable community, or what leads you to believe that it's not as much of a problem as they make it out to be? I'm sure it will always be possible to find a way to harass someone. But do you believe putting barriers in place has no effect on the amount of harassment that targets have to endure? What do you think of the computer security concept of "defense in depth"?
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  Usenet kill file style support for chat clients, optionally with a subscription option to shared blocklists like uBlock Plus supports.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    Couldn't you trivially defeat that by randomizing your IRC username? Blocking email addresses does literally nothing against email spam, why would chat be different?
    - ohithereyou 7y ago
      More of what I was thinking was a killfile controlled by the user, uploaded to the server when updated, that would allow the server to filter messages. You could allow shared blocked lists and support wildcards with whitelist exceptions. In this way, you can block everyone and whitelist who you want, so changing your IRC user name does not help. In most cases, unless the person connects from somewhere else, specifying a sufficiently wildcarded netmask for the host part also prevents the IRC nick change.
      - laughinghan 7y ago
        Doesn't blocking everyone except a whitelist defeat the purpose of having your IRC chatroom open to the public?

ignoranceprior 7y ago

IRC isn't really anonymous or private. Your IP address is visible to everyone by default.

xvrc 7y ago
IP addresses are public information.
deanclatworthy 7y ago
Which is incredibly easily to get around with a bouncer and shell company in eastern europe or pretty much anywhere. We're not talking state-actor anonymous, but anonymous enough.