6 ms·

Was disappointed to see that an open source education project requires one to accept the terms of service of a proprietary, centralized, and privacy adverse ser

by lrvick 5y ago

Was disappointed to see that an open source education project requires one to accept the terms of service of a proprietary, centralized, and privacy adverse service like Discord to be able to communicate with others. This makes it hard to recommend to others. I don't understand this trend.

jraph 5y ago
> I don't understand this trend Network effect. I don't like it neither. Many open source projects adopt Discord now, making it harder to be part of their community if you want to avoid non-free software / closed networks. (What next? Open source projects hosted on a non-free social network? /s) From the outside, this is an impressive phenomenon, where in a very short time you notice everybody suddenly going to Discord and you don't understand what's happening / what's the deal. But since nobody cares, it's not a problem.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
In what way is Discord particularly privacy averse?
- zeepzeep 5y ago
  There's a feature that they scan your messages for abusive content, so it's surely not encrypted as they can read every private message
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Do they advertise encryption?
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    "Do the advertise encryption?" Do they need to? The point wasn't "they falsely advertise encryption" The point was "they do not respect privacy" Their advertising is irrelevant.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      No, that was not, in fact, the question I asked. I asked whether they were "particularly privacy averse." And, to me, it seems like they are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service, given that they don't claim to offer any more privacy than any other service. In fact, the only real difference I see between Discord and an IRC server is that Discord forces you to create an account and associates your messages with it. But, so does Github, and nobody complains about needing a Github account to contribute to FOSS projects.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        "it seems like they are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service, given that they don't claim to offer any more privacy than any other service." Pro tip, using sweeping words like "any" will almost always make you wrong. Nearly every popular messaging service these days offers end-to-end encryption. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say they "are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service" When you're worse off, privacy-wise than a Facebook owned messenger, you're not doing too hot. I found a good write up of popular and e2e messengers for you to check out. https://getstream.io/blog/most-secure-messaging-apps/ https://getstream.io/blog/most-secure-messaging-apps/
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I'm not claiming Discord is the most privacy-focused messenger out there by any means. That's what you seem to be arguing. I'm arguing that they have no particular aversion to user privacy (i.e. they are not particularly "privacy averse"). Literally nothing you've said constitutes a counterargument against that. Again, if you want to revise your claim to say that they're not particularly privacy-focused, then, sure, I agree with that. But, to argue that they're privacy averse (meaning they hate user privacy and don't want anybody to have it), I don't see it, and it's not been proven here. Pro tip: try arguing the point you're actually trying to make.

by lrvick 5y ago

jraph 5y ago

> I don't understand this trend Network effect. I don't like it neither. Many open source projects adopt Discord now, making it harder to be part of their community if you want to avoid non-free software / closed networks. (What next? Open source projects hosted on a non-free social network? /s) From the outside, this is an impressive phenomenon, where in a very short time you notice everybody suddenly going to Discord and you don't understand what's happening / what's the deal. But since nobody cares, it's not a problem.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

In what way is Discord particularly privacy averse?

zeepzeep 5y ago
There's a feature that they scan your messages for abusive content, so it's surely not encrypted as they can read every private message
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Do they advertise encryption?
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  "Do the advertise encryption?" Do they need to? The point wasn't "they falsely advertise encryption" The point was "they do not respect privacy" Their advertising is irrelevant.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    No, that was not, in fact, the question I asked. I asked whether they were "particularly privacy averse." And, to me, it seems like they are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service, given that they don't claim to offer any more privacy than any other service. In fact, the only real difference I see between Discord and an IRC server is that Discord forces you to create an account and associates your messages with it. But, so does Github, and nobody complains about needing a Github account to contribute to FOSS projects.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      "it seems like they are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service, given that they don't claim to offer any more privacy than any other service." Pro tip, using sweeping words like "any" will almost always make you wrong. Nearly every popular messaging service these days offers end-to-end encryption. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say they "are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service" When you're worse off, privacy-wise than a Facebook owned messenger, you're not doing too hot. I found a good write up of popular and e2e messengers for you to check out. https://getstream.io/blog/most-secure-messaging-apps/ https://getstream.io/blog/most-secure-messaging-apps/
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I'm not claiming Discord is the most privacy-focused messenger out there by any means. That's what you seem to be arguing. I'm arguing that they have no particular aversion to user privacy (i.e. they are not particularly "privacy averse"). Literally nothing you've said constitutes a counterargument against that. Again, if you want to revise your claim to say that they're not particularly privacy-focused, then, sure, I agree with that. But, to argue that they're privacy averse (meaning they hate user privacy and don't want anybody to have it), I don't see it, and it's not been proven here. Pro tip: try arguing the point you're actually trying to make.