8 ms·

Discord and other biggest communication platforms should be legally required to provide a fully featured API. Forbidding users from writing and using 3rd party

Discord and other biggest communication platforms should be legally required to provide a fully featured API. Forbidding users from writing and using 3rd party clients is outrageous.

edfletcher_t137 4y ago
Regardless of what you feel should be true, the reality is that Discord considers using software like this "self-botting" and will ban your account for it. The disclaimer to this effect is buried at the very bottom of the README, seemingly on purpose.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Ideally there should be no way for them to even know we're running custom clients.
tptacek 4y ago
Why? What else should I be able to demand from other people's products, simply by dint of their products fitting a particular description?
- HidyBush 4y ago
  Discord clients can't magically implement features that the Discord API doesn't have. The only thing they can do is personalize the experience locally, maybe by changing the interface or implementing more comfortable defaults and shortcuts. This is not a case of a Discord client offering Nitro (i.e. paid) features for free, to get the paid features you have to authenticate yourself through the API meaning Discord still gets the money and everyone's happy.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Why should companies that build products with serverside components be required to let you build your own clients? What you're saying when you make this demand is that it should be unlawful to build closed systems (or: unlawful to build closed systems if there's a network API anywhere in them).
    - HidyBush 4y ago
      The moment you have a publicly facing API you are saying "these are the rules to talk to us". It doesn't matter what the client is, if it follows the rules then it should work. A website is a publicly facing API and if two different browsers can talk the HTTP protocol and implement all the other APIs the website requires then you shouldn't be blocked from accessing the website through one of them
      - tptacek 4y ago
        You're not really answering my question. "One of the rules of this API is that you exclusively use this client" is an expressible rule. What gives you the right to dictate the terms that other people build by? I don't understand the principle here.
        Firmwarrior 4y ago
        I'll explain why I want the right to dictate the terms by which software on my computer talks to software on other people's computers. It's because it's relatively easy to customize local software to work in ways I and other people want it to, and the only thing stopping us from doing so is arbitrary draconian laws and rules. This results in situations where you can't access a lot of straightforward websites and services unless you download an "app" that's actually just a wrapper around a web browser and a bunch of spyware, and it makes it impossible for people with various minor disabilities to use a lot of services comfortably. The rule right now is "Any jerkoff can dictate what is and isn't allowed to run on my computer" and I would like to change that rule to "I'm in charge of what runs on my computer, you're in charge of what runs on your computer".
        prvit 4y ago
        > and I would like to change that rule to "I'm in charge of what runs on my computer, you're in charge of what runs on your computer". Who is forcing you to install Discord?
- neoromantique 4y ago
  Demanding opening and tolerating programmatic access to an extent would probably be a good thing tbh, even if from accessibility PoV. Make it opt-in with advanced user verification if you want to fight spam, not simply blanket ban everyone whose data you can't monetize easily :shrug:
  - tptacek 4y ago
    It's not just spam; in fact, spam might be the least of it. Part of the reason companies require specific clients is that doing so makes it easier for them to build the product and deliver the specific value that they've decided they want to deliver.
    - RobbieGM 4y ago
      So, let's force that "value" on every user rather than let them build the experience they actually like?
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Sure? Companies do get to dictate things to their customers: they can build things, or not build them. Customers don't get that control: their recourse is to the market.
        tdy_err 4y ago
        I don't like YouTube's UI therefore I should… use Vimeo?
        RobbieGM 4y ago
        They absolutely should get that control though. The only thing preventing them from having it, often, are artificial limitations. Don't place too much faith in "the market" to fix problems.
    - Jetrel 4y ago
      The biggest plus is that — like Chrome, if they decide they made a mistake, they can pivot a change that many of their users would disagree with, and force it on the whole ecosystem immediately. Chrome has done this a lot, and almost all of it has been security-related stuff that's been jammed down our throats. And sure enough - the medicine has been quite distasteful, but it was good for the patient. A lot of this stuff is UI-related; it's things that aren't a reskin, but they're a major shakeup of how the entire UI works, and would break all other clients using a framework. The problem with "truly" federated protocols is that every design fuckup is preserved in amber for eternity.
- e12e 4y ago
  They are in various ways more like utilities than products - like other utilities they/we would benefit from regulation - leveling the playing field and helping future proof these services.
  - troyvit 4y ago
    Then we should name them as utilities before we start regulating them as such. And who is the one to name them a utility? Is it the government of the company's base of operations? If so won't they just move (such as many companies do to avoid tax complications)? And where do you draw the line? Why is Discord a utility and not, say, Truth Social? And then how do you turn federated networks like Mastodon into utilities? Once something is classified as a utlity, what are the rules for guarding customer data? Are they more beholden to governments to release customer data? Less?
    - e12e 4y ago
      > Then we should name them as utilities before we start regulating them as such. Well, we should certainly make an effort so that regulations are predictable and sensible. > And where do you draw the line? Why is Discord a utility and not, say, Truth Social? > And then how do you turn federated networks like Mastodon into utilities? I think this is going about it from the wrong side. Snail mail, phone service, internet service - these are things we regulate in various ways. Maybe we should with various, similar digital services too. Email? Messaging networks like discord?
- jelly 4y ago
  The demand isn't being made to the product side; Discord and other chat clients already have a chat API which their clients authenticate and talk to, it's all already built and user-facing. They already distrust their clients. They already made everything a third party client would need. It's a policy change, not a product change, and demanding a company adjust their bad policy is totally normal.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > Why? Computing freedom: it should be law. Clauses like "you can't reverse engineer" and "you can only connect via our software" should be null and void. > What else should I be able to demand from other people's products You should be able to demand that your computing freedom be respected. We should all be able to run whatever software we want to interact with their servers.
- franga2000 4y ago
  You mean "particular descriptions" like "is a vehicle", "contains radio transmitter", "stores personally identifiable information"...? We he regulatory requirements for all sorts of products for all sorts of reasons. Any specific example can of course be debated about, but the concept of "to demand from other people's products, simply by dint of their products fitting a particular description" is anything but the crazy unprecedented idea you seem to be implying it is.
gaius_baltar 4y ago
Do anybody checked if the European DMA (Digital Markets Act) will be able to force Discord to open their platform for third-parties? Whether or not it constitutes a "gatekeeper" (in the DMA parlance) is a bit confusing for me...
- tnzk 4y ago
  IANAL though, according to the figures they don't appear to be the subject. Definition of gatekeepers in DMA: > A size that impacts the internal market: ... equal to or above €7.5 billion in in each of the last three financial years, ... The control of an important gateway for business users towards final consumers: ... more than 45 million monthly active end users ... and more than 10,000 yearly active business users ... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_... Discord's performance: > Discord generated $130 million revenue in 2020, ... Discord has over 140 million active monthly users... https://www.businessofapps.com/data/discord-statistics/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/discord-statistics/
  - 3np 4y ago
    > "10,000 yearly active business users" Without a definition - which I have not located - this is ambiguous - does anybody know what they use here to determine if a user is a "business user" or not? If the definition is "account represents and is owned by a business rather than an physical person and is used in the course of business" I'm pretty sure Discord would come out above that?
    - techdragon 4y ago
      As someone following the “discord for business” matter in multiple support channels… I don’t think they have any business customers. They have end users and individual customers. So it would have to be the 45 million users.
herbst 4y ago
IMO they can do what they want, they are a private company. Weird is just how many people are actively using that pile of s.
- franga2000 4y ago
  1. "Companies can do whatever they want" isn't a universal human right. We can and often should both limit them from doing things that harm people and force them to do things that benefit people. 2. I see this all the time on HN, but it's never substantiated. Besides being laggy on older devices, which can be said for at least half of all modern software, what specifically makes it anything but an excellent communication platform?
dancemethis 4y ago
They shouldn't exist as proprietary software in the first place.

Discord and other biggest communication platforms should be legally required to provide a fully featured API. Forbidding users from writing and using 3rd party clients is outrageous.

edfletcher_t137 4y ago

Regardless of what you feel should be true, the reality is that Discord considers using software like this "self-botting" and will ban your account for it. The disclaimer to this effect is buried at the very bottom of the README, seemingly on purpose.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
Ideally there should be no way for them to even know we're running custom clients.

tptacek 4y ago

Why? What else should I be able to demand from other people's products, simply by dint of their products fitting a particular description?

HidyBush 4y ago
Discord clients can't magically implement features that the Discord API doesn't have. The only thing they can do is personalize the experience locally, maybe by changing the interface or implementing more comfortable defaults and shortcuts. This is not a case of a Discord client offering Nitro (i.e. paid) features for free, to get the paid features you have to authenticate yourself through the API meaning Discord still gets the money and everyone's happy.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Why should companies that build products with serverside components be required to let you build your own clients? What you're saying when you make this demand is that it should be unlawful to build closed systems (or: unlawful to build closed systems if there's a network API anywhere in them).
  - HidyBush 4y ago
    The moment you have a publicly facing API you are saying "these are the rules to talk to us". It doesn't matter what the client is, if it follows the rules then it should work. A website is a publicly facing API and if two different browsers can talk the HTTP protocol and implement all the other APIs the website requires then you shouldn't be blocked from accessing the website through one of them
    - tptacek 4y ago
      You're not really answering my question. "One of the rules of this API is that you exclusively use this client" is an expressible rule. What gives you the right to dictate the terms that other people build by? I don't understand the principle here.
      - Firmwarrior 4y ago
        I'll explain why I want the right to dictate the terms by which software on my computer talks to software on other people's computers. It's because it's relatively easy to customize local software to work in ways I and other people want it to, and the only thing stopping us from doing so is arbitrary draconian laws and rules. This results in situations where you can't access a lot of straightforward websites and services unless you download an "app" that's actually just a wrapper around a web browser and a bunch of spyware, and it makes it impossible for people with various minor disabilities to use a lot of services comfortably. The rule right now is "Any jerkoff can dictate what is and isn't allowed to run on my computer" and I would like to change that rule to "I'm in charge of what runs on my computer, you're in charge of what runs on your computer".
        prvit 4y ago
        > and I would like to change that rule to "I'm in charge of what runs on my computer, you're in charge of what runs on your computer". Who is forcing you to install Discord?
neoromantique 4y ago
Demanding opening and tolerating programmatic access to an extent would probably be a good thing tbh, even if from accessibility PoV. Make it opt-in with advanced user verification if you want to fight spam, not simply blanket ban everyone whose data you can't monetize easily :shrug:
- tptacek 4y ago
  It's not just spam; in fact, spam might be the least of it. Part of the reason companies require specific clients is that doing so makes it easier for them to build the product and deliver the specific value that they've decided they want to deliver.
  - RobbieGM 4y ago
    So, let's force that "value" on every user rather than let them build the experience they actually like?
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Sure? Companies do get to dictate things to their customers: they can build things, or not build them. Customers don't get that control: their recourse is to the market.
      - tdy_err 4y ago
        I don't like YouTube's UI therefore I should… use Vimeo?
      - RobbieGM 4y ago
        They absolutely should get that control though. The only thing preventing them from having it, often, are artificial limitations. Don't place too much faith in "the market" to fix problems.
  - Jetrel 4y ago
    The biggest plus is that — like Chrome, if they decide they made a mistake, they can pivot a change that many of their users would disagree with, and force it on the whole ecosystem immediately. Chrome has done this a lot, and almost all of it has been security-related stuff that's been jammed down our throats. And sure enough - the medicine has been quite distasteful, but it was good for the patient. A lot of this stuff is UI-related; it's things that aren't a reskin, but they're a major shakeup of how the entire UI works, and would break all other clients using a framework. The problem with "truly" federated protocols is that every design fuckup is preserved in amber for eternity.
e12e 4y ago
They are in various ways more like utilities than products - like other utilities they/we would benefit from regulation - leveling the playing field and helping future proof these services.
- troyvit 4y ago
  Then we should name them as utilities before we start regulating them as such. And who is the one to name them a utility? Is it the government of the company's base of operations? If so won't they just move (such as many companies do to avoid tax complications)? And where do you draw the line? Why is Discord a utility and not, say, Truth Social? And then how do you turn federated networks like Mastodon into utilities? Once something is classified as a utlity, what are the rules for guarding customer data? Are they more beholden to governments to release customer data? Less?
  - e12e 4y ago
    > Then we should name them as utilities before we start regulating them as such. Well, we should certainly make an effort so that regulations are predictable and sensible. > And where do you draw the line? Why is Discord a utility and not, say, Truth Social? > And then how do you turn federated networks like Mastodon into utilities? I think this is going about it from the wrong side. Snail mail, phone service, internet service - these are things we regulate in various ways. Maybe we should with various, similar digital services too. Email? Messaging networks like discord?
jelly 4y ago
The demand isn't being made to the product side; Discord and other chat clients already have a chat API which their clients authenticate and talk to, it's all already built and user-facing. They already distrust their clients. They already made everything a third party client would need. It's a policy change, not a product change, and demanding a company adjust their bad policy is totally normal.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> Why? Computing freedom: it should be law. Clauses like "you can't reverse engineer" and "you can only connect via our software" should be null and void. > What else should I be able to demand from other people's products You should be able to demand that your computing freedom be respected. We should all be able to run whatever software we want to interact with their servers.
franga2000 4y ago
You mean "particular descriptions" like "is a vehicle", "contains radio transmitter", "stores personally identifiable information"...? We he regulatory requirements for all sorts of products for all sorts of reasons. Any specific example can of course be debated about, but the concept of "to demand from other people's products, simply by dint of their products fitting a particular description" is anything but the crazy unprecedented idea you seem to be implying it is.

gaius_baltar 4y ago

Do anybody checked if the European DMA (Digital Markets Act) will be able to force Discord to open their platform for third-parties? Whether or not it constitutes a "gatekeeper" (in the DMA parlance) is a bit confusing for me...

tnzk 4y ago
IANAL though, according to the figures they don't appear to be the subject. Definition of gatekeepers in DMA: > A size that impacts the internal market: ... equal to or above €7.5 billion in in each of the last three financial years, ... The control of an important gateway for business users towards final consumers: ... more than 45 million monthly active end users ... and more than 10,000 yearly active business users ... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_... Discord's performance: > Discord generated $130 million revenue in 2020, ... Discord has over 140 million active monthly users... https://www.businessofapps.com/data/discord-statistics/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/discord-statistics/
- 3np 4y ago
  > "10,000 yearly active business users" Without a definition - which I have not located - this is ambiguous - does anybody know what they use here to determine if a user is a "business user" or not? If the definition is "account represents and is owned by a business rather than an physical person and is used in the course of business" I'm pretty sure Discord would come out above that?
  - techdragon 4y ago
    As someone following the “discord for business” matter in multiple support channels… I don’t think they have any business customers. They have end users and individual customers. So it would have to be the 45 million users.

herbst 4y ago

IMO they can do what they want, they are a private company. Weird is just how many people are actively using that pile of s.

franga2000 4y ago
1. "Companies can do whatever they want" isn't a universal human right. We can and often should both limit them from doing things that harm people and force them to do things that benefit people. 2. I see this all the time on HN, but it's never substantiated. Besides being laggy on older devices, which can be said for at least half of all modern software, what specifically makes it anything but an excellent communication platform?

dancemethis 4y ago

They shouldn't exist as proprietary software in the first place.