4 ms·

> their code is proprietary, they're a business. Their code can be proprietary, but their protocol shouldn't be. Walled gardens are antithetical to the spirit

by rvense 5y ago

> their code is proprietary, they're a business. Their code can be proprietary, but their protocol shouldn't be. Walled gardens are antithetical to the spirit that built the internet, and no amount of donations can't change the fact that Discord is bad for the net.

gcau 5y ago
I'm not surprised they don't want to "un-wall" their garden to satisfy a truely tiny amount of people. The "walled garden" is an argument that goes in circles, what if we all like our walled garden? Apple too, for example. If there were more competitors outside of the wall that would be a lot more beneficial, than trying to attack the wall because users are so happy they don't want to leave it.
- rvense 5y ago
  It's because most people don't understand the societal consequences of it. We are dependent on the whims of single companies like no other time in history.
  - rimliu 5y ago
    What could those whims be? To go out of business?
  - blitzar 5y ago
    > We are dependent on the whims of single companies like no other time in history. If discord whom one might depend upon, on a whim shut down, there are about 50 alternatives. The consumer has the most power they have ever had in history, and the companies are all desperately hoping that they are not going into the wikipedia page next to myspace (at least until the c-suite cashes out). Chat forums are so incredibly low stakes anyway, that the disappearence of a handfull would probably be a net contributer to the world anyway. Nothing of great value would be lost. So the societal consequences you speak of are meaningless.
  - criley2 5y ago
    I disagree that we are dependent on the whims of single companies more than anytime in history. In fact, once you go 100 years or more back, I think most of history is dominated by major monopolies, trusts, and nation-sized companies in ways that we can't fathom. There is no East India Trading Company today. There is no U.S. Steel or Rockefeller Standard Oil. There is no Big 3 newsmedia companies controlling all news. Just saying, a little historical perspective is useful.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
  > satisfy a truely tiny amount of people If this were true: Why go after the people creating alternate clients, as Discord has apparently done a number of times now? Apparently "un-walling" is not a problem here, people not being walled quite as hard (without any involvement or development cost for discord themselves) is.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    Devil's advocate: Because things like unauthorized clients make abuse easier. If you control the client, you can do more than if you merely control the API.
toastal 5y ago
They've sent out cease and desists to every project trying to create an alternative experience like TUI for those on lower resources or want to cut a lot of the 'crap' and tracking out of the app.
charcircuit 5y ago
Their protocol has been reverse engineered. I've been making bots since the early days and it started from people reverse engineering the protocol. Discord has done a ton to support bot makers.

by rvense 5y ago

gcau 5y ago

I'm not surprised they don't want to "un-wall" their garden to satisfy a truely tiny amount of people. The "walled garden" is an argument that goes in circles, what if we all like our walled garden? Apple too, for example. If there were more competitors outside of the wall that would be a lot more beneficial, than trying to attack the wall because users are so happy they don't want to leave it.

rvense 5y ago
It's because most people don't understand the societal consequences of it. We are dependent on the whims of single companies like no other time in history.
- rimliu 5y ago
  What could those whims be? To go out of business?
- blitzar 5y ago
  > We are dependent on the whims of single companies like no other time in history. If discord whom one might depend upon, on a whim shut down, there are about 50 alternatives. The consumer has the most power they have ever had in history, and the companies are all desperately hoping that they are not going into the wikipedia page next to myspace (at least until the c-suite cashes out). Chat forums are so incredibly low stakes anyway, that the disappearence of a handfull would probably be a net contributer to the world anyway. Nothing of great value would be lost. So the societal consequences you speak of are meaningless.
- criley2 5y ago
  I disagree that we are dependent on the whims of single companies more than anytime in history. In fact, once you go 100 years or more back, I think most of history is dominated by major monopolies, trusts, and nation-sized companies in ways that we can't fathom. There is no East India Trading Company today. There is no U.S. Steel or Rockefeller Standard Oil. There is no Big 3 newsmedia companies controlling all news. Just saying, a little historical perspective is useful.
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
> satisfy a truely tiny amount of people If this were true: Why go after the people creating alternate clients, as Discord has apparently done a number of times now? Apparently "un-walling" is not a problem here, people not being walled quite as hard (without any involvement or development cost for discord themselves) is.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Devil's advocate: Because things like unauthorized clients make abuse easier. If you control the client, you can do more than if you merely control the API.

toastal 5y ago

They've sent out cease and desists to every project trying to create an alternative experience like TUI for those on lower resources or want to cut a lot of the 'crap' and tracking out of the app.

charcircuit 5y ago

Their protocol has been reverse engineered. I've been making bots since the early days and it started from people reverse engineering the protocol. Discord has done a ton to support bot makers.