4 ms·

This! For example Discord has a splendid unofficial client(Ripcord), but because they don't care about their users they choose to ban people who use it and for

This! For example Discord has a splendid unofficial client(Ripcord), but because they don't care about their users they choose to ban people who use it and force them to use the original lag-o-matic mammoth of a client(Like, seriously, an IM that takes up a gig of ram on its own). Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25217170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25217170

haupt 4y ago
Their client is terrible. You can't prevent it from snooping on your processes without putting it in a sandbox.
- chii 4y ago
  i'd just use the web client for discord.
- ThatMedicIsASpy 4y ago
  I use web only, block every access to things and customize it with Firefox builtin custom CSS. It will put me in an idle state when I'm not interacting with it compared to a desktop client that knows when I move my mouse.
  - neoromantique 4y ago
    lol. This brings me to a different pet peeve of mine. Discord is really opaque in a way that it handles activity status, it doesn't show you what status it thinks you are (i.e it can show you as Online but Away or Mobile to others). Which is very annoying when working with others. For times when I work off my iPad, I use a vnc and xdotool to press a button every few seconds on my PC (not in Discord though, don't want to get banned). That is the only way I found to make sure it shows me as Online and not breaks their T&C.
  - qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
    same. but I get the feeling that the era of services like that available in the browser is near its end. 10-20 years, and their website will only have links to 'get our app'
  - Grimburger 4y ago
    > I use web only Which is intentionally garbage to use. I'm with the GP, pop it into an unprivileged LXD container and stop dealing with their corp snooping nonsense.
    - rebane2001 4y ago
      I use both the web and the desktop version depending on what I'm doing and I'd say they are identical except for a few features that obviously cannot work on the web (eg global keybinds for push-to-talk).
    - floatboth 4y ago
      ?? It's entirely identical to the desktop version. Desktop is just an electron wrapper that adds fancy integration like rich presence and in-game overlays and whatever else.
Spivak 4y ago
The why is spam prevention which is why it’s against their ToS to send automated messages as non-bot accounts. How do you (somewhat) enforce that you make everyone use their not scriptable client. Is it perfect, hell no, does it work, yes. Like I get that this is HN and the hacker ethos is “anything I can do as a human I should be able to automate” but that makes the already intractable spam problem that much harder.
- chii 4y ago
  a spammer can automate the spamming via tools like autohotkeys, rather than modding a client. It's slightly more resource intensive, but not by much imho. Preventing spam is more a task for server-side detection and filtering. Gmail's been doing it very well for decades, and i can't see why similar methods won't work for messaging. And adding a rate-limit server-side is another defence. The least useful option of banning modded clients for chats is a bad trade-off for most users whilst providing very little actual protection.
  - mike_hearn 4y ago
    Stuff like AutoHotKeys is far slower than a multi-threaded bot driving the protocol directly, and spam is all about speed/volume, so in practice if spammers are reduced to that it's a big win. Gmail actually does rely on various forms of "anti cheat" to control spam, including obfuscated code that detects attempts to automate the browser. That doesn't help for inbound mail but it helps a lot to stop people sending spam from Gmail.
    - chii 4y ago
      > Stuff like AutoHotKeys is far slower than a multi-threaded bot driving the protocol directly Not by an order of magnitude, esp, for chat applications that are limited by http application protocols. > ..that detects attempts to automate the browser. Nobody sends spam from the gmail web browser client, but suppose google successfully bans (somehow?) all other email clients, the enterprising spam sending people would still easily automate the browser, esp. with things like autohotkeys (which doesn't require modifying the browser itself, nor run code in the browser). The point is, banning a client side mod for any service is irrational if the justification is to prevent spammers.

haupt 4y ago

Their client is terrible. You can't prevent it from snooping on your processes without putting it in a sandbox.

chii 4y ago
i'd just use the web client for discord.
ThatMedicIsASpy 4y ago
I use web only, block every access to things and customize it with Firefox builtin custom CSS. It will put me in an idle state when I'm not interacting with it compared to a desktop client that knows when I move my mouse.
- neoromantique 4y ago
  lol. This brings me to a different pet peeve of mine. Discord is really opaque in a way that it handles activity status, it doesn't show you what status it thinks you are (i.e it can show you as Online but Away or Mobile to others). Which is very annoying when working with others. For times when I work off my iPad, I use a vnc and xdotool to press a button every few seconds on my PC (not in Discord though, don't want to get banned). That is the only way I found to make sure it shows me as Online and not breaks their T&C.
- qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
  same. but I get the feeling that the era of services like that available in the browser is near its end. 10-20 years, and their website will only have links to 'get our app'
- Grimburger 4y ago
  > I use web only Which is intentionally garbage to use. I'm with the GP, pop it into an unprivileged LXD container and stop dealing with their corp snooping nonsense.
  - rebane2001 4y ago
    I use both the web and the desktop version depending on what I'm doing and I'd say they are identical except for a few features that obviously cannot work on the web (eg global keybinds for push-to-talk).
  - floatboth 4y ago
    ?? It's entirely identical to the desktop version. Desktop is just an electron wrapper that adds fancy integration like rich presence and in-game overlays and whatever else.

Spivak 4y ago

The why is spam prevention which is why it’s against their ToS to send automated messages as non-bot accounts. How do you (somewhat) enforce that you make everyone use their not scriptable client. Is it perfect, hell no, does it work, yes. Like I get that this is HN and the hacker ethos is “anything I can do as a human I should be able to automate” but that makes the already intractable spam problem that much harder.

chii 4y ago
a spammer can automate the spamming via tools like autohotkeys, rather than modding a client. It's slightly more resource intensive, but not by much imho. Preventing spam is more a task for server-side detection and filtering. Gmail's been doing it very well for decades, and i can't see why similar methods won't work for messaging. And adding a rate-limit server-side is another defence. The least useful option of banning modded clients for chats is a bad trade-off for most users whilst providing very little actual protection.
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  Stuff like AutoHotKeys is far slower than a multi-threaded bot driving the protocol directly, and spam is all about speed/volume, so in practice if spammers are reduced to that it's a big win. Gmail actually does rely on various forms of "anti cheat" to control spam, including obfuscated code that detects attempts to automate the browser. That doesn't help for inbound mail but it helps a lot to stop people sending spam from Gmail.
  - chii 4y ago
    > Stuff like AutoHotKeys is far slower than a multi-threaded bot driving the protocol directly Not by an order of magnitude, esp, for chat applications that are limited by http application protocols. > ..that detects attempts to automate the browser. Nobody sends spam from the gmail web browser client, but suppose google successfully bans (somehow?) all other email clients, the enterprising spam sending people would still easily automate the browser, esp. with things like autohotkeys (which doesn't require modifying the browser itself, nor run code in the browser). The point is, banning a client side mod for any service is irrational if the justification is to prevent spammers.