5 ms·
> Discord unfortunately doesn't have any native chat export feature so the best that can be done are third-party exporters, copy-pasting or screenshots which ar
by jhanschoo 4y ago
> Discord unfortunately doesn't have any native chat export feature so the best that can be done are third-party exporters, copy-pasting or screenshots which aren't ideal and don't end up being indexed as desired even if communities wanted them to be.
Server owners have the option for message logging bots. If communities wanted logging, they do have that option with server owner buy-in.
Arguably, difficult-to-archive by default if you aren't a server owner helps foster a safer chat experience.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoHow? I’m an owner.
- alwayslikethis 4y agoNo, it fosters a less safe experience, when the behavior is hidden. For someone willing to spend just about 30 minutes, it isn't hard to have a script log in to your own account to record messages without anyone noticing.
- jhanschoo 4y agoThat's against TOS, and my line of reasoning is that it helps against opportunistic and casual abuse, and there aren't really mitigations against more determined abuse. e.g. your relationship with someone has soured. Your IRC client has your private messages with them saved in a backlog. You can access them at any time. vs. you normally wouldn't save a backlog of messages because Discord remembers your message history, and if their relationship with you has soured, they have the option of nuking their messages.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago> and if their relationship with you has soured, they have the option of nuking their messages. How is that a feature?
- IanCal 4y agoI think that depends on whether you think of a message you receive as belonging to the person who wrote it or the person who is reading it.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoNeither. I find this a weird notion. The message belongs to both sender and recipients. All of them, in case of one-to-many communication. If there's someone least entitled to message ownership, IMO it's the sender. To grant the sender the ability to take messages back is to allow them to encroach the "personal space" of the recipient - to make unilateral changes to the sphere of reality they considers their own. Physical analogy: to "unsend" a letter, you'd have to break into my house and steal it. Digital analogy: to "unsend" an e-mail, you'd have to break into my computer / mail server and delete it there. "Unsending" e-mail exists in corporate (organizational in general) contexts, but this is tied to an artificial environment following a much different sense of rules - those e-mails aren't truly yours, they're the property of the company (org) as part of which you're communicating. In the same way, corporate might let you "unsend" a physical letter too, at least internally. But this is an exception, tied to acting as an agent of an organization; private communications have different defaults. Also in general, as I mentioned in another branch of this subthread, I don't like solutions that let someone mess with someone else's perception of reality. "Unsending" is doing exactly that, so at the very least, it must not be silent - it must always leave a visible mark. "There was a message here. It was removed by the sender."
- alwayslikethis 4y agoI agree with you. Analogously, I find the notion of forced read receipts to be weird. I can accept having a "delivered" status, to indicate that the message reached one of my devices, but a "read/seen" status is intrusive. The physical equivalent of this is sending an internet connected camera and let it send a message back if I opened your box.