5 ms·

Correct. Discord is building things that users of Discord already use Discord for. They are just making it easier to set things up and manage. This is them know

Correct. Discord is building things that users of Discord already use Discord for. They are just making it easier to set things up and manage. This is them knowing their customers.

jjulius 3y ago
>They are just making it easier to set things up and manage. This is them knowing their customers. Let's call a spade a spade - this is them knowing their customers, yes, but I'd hardly say they're just making things easier. It's Discord saying, "Oh, people pay for this kinda thing through Patreon? We'd actually like that money instead, please".
- Gigachad 3y ago
  The existing process is super clunky. They are making it better while also making money. Winners all round. Unless you are patreon.
- noirbot 3y ago
  Sure, and if they can offer a better product than Patreon then it's good for Discord and for the people running the communities. Most folks I know who use Patreon loathe it - they've barely improved the product in the last few years, so Discord feels like they're in a good position to offer a better service for some users.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    I'd argue that the improvement for the users is just a byproduct in Discord's eyes. Pardon my pessimism, but I don't see Discord just deciding to stop monetizing more things. This is the encroachment of enshittiffication.
    - noirbot 3y ago
      Sure, but that's essentially just "we all agree capitalism sucks, right?" in more words. I'd rather I just get a free voice chat app forever, but given that that's not the way this current economy works, I'm going to take the wins where I can when a company is choosing to monetize in ways that are generally good for everyone involved. Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        >Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways. I'd argue that's why we end up in the position we often end up in, as users. We take it little by little until it's too late. The "Well yeah that's capitalism and it sucks so /shrug, right?" argument feels kinda weak to me. If Discord's profitable and users are happy, why beat them for even more profit? Why can't we just go, "Welp, this is working, let's maintain where we're at"?
        paddw 3y ago
        There's no way Discord is profitable.
        jjulius 3y ago
        Then, and I recognize that this is just my opinion, we should just let it die rather than going, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?".
        noirbot 3y ago
        I'm really confused by your attitude that a company giving out a quality free service is some kind of abusive orphanage owner giving out slop to kids here. Like, are you against them making money off of this? This isn't Netflix cutting off shared accounts and ramping up the price every year. This isn't Amazon swindling people into signing up for Prime. This is a company that sells product A also deciding to sell a complimentary product B that they think will help them continue to sell product A at a good price. If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory, I'm not sure how that's a consistent way to interact with modern capitalism at all. Almost every company has loss-leaders or cross-marketing or vertical/horizontal integration. If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News...
    - skeaker 3y ago
      If you read the article that the term you're using actually originates from, it states that a necessary part of enshittification is that it makes the application less useful for users. This change does the opposite and doesn't qualify at all.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        Hence my use of the word "encroachment". I'd be more than happy to eat my hat in a few years if it doesn't happen, but like I said, "pardon my pessimism".
- rcxdude 3y ago
  Which is neutral or good for users, especially if it subsidises the free chat platform. Patreon doesn't provide anything meaningful to creators or users beyond a payment mechanism (seriously: it is so bad at hosting and presenting the actual content it's increasingly common for creators to just not use it for that. And even if they do post anything but a link on patreon it's still on discord before that)
  - jjulius 3y ago
    As I mentioned in the other comment chain, it's the slippery slope of enshittification encroaching upon Discord IMO.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  > I'd hardly say they're just making things easier. For users? 100% it just makes things easier. This just makes it easier for users and hopefully overcomes some of the issues with Patreon's integration with Discord. But from a user's perspective (which is what my POV was from and the only one that matters in this context), whether you are paying Patreon or Discord, it doesn't really matter.

Correct. Discord is building things that users of Discord already use Discord for. They are just making it easier to set things up and manage. This is them knowing their customers.

jjulius 3y ago

>They are just making it easier to set things up and manage. This is them knowing their customers. Let's call a spade a spade - this is them knowing their customers, yes, but I'd hardly say they're just making things easier. It's Discord saying, "Oh, people pay for this kinda thing through Patreon? We'd actually like that money instead, please".

Gigachad 3y ago
The existing process is super clunky. They are making it better while also making money. Winners all round. Unless you are patreon.
noirbot 3y ago
Sure, and if they can offer a better product than Patreon then it's good for Discord and for the people running the communities. Most folks I know who use Patreon loathe it - they've barely improved the product in the last few years, so Discord feels like they're in a good position to offer a better service for some users.
- jjulius 3y ago
  I'd argue that the improvement for the users is just a byproduct in Discord's eyes. Pardon my pessimism, but I don't see Discord just deciding to stop monetizing more things. This is the encroachment of enshittiffication.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    Sure, but that's essentially just "we all agree capitalism sucks, right?" in more words. I'd rather I just get a free voice chat app forever, but given that that's not the way this current economy works, I'm going to take the wins where I can when a company is choosing to monetize in ways that are generally good for everyone involved. Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      >Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways. I'd argue that's why we end up in the position we often end up in, as users. We take it little by little until it's too late. The "Well yeah that's capitalism and it sucks so /shrug, right?" argument feels kinda weak to me. If Discord's profitable and users are happy, why beat them for even more profit? Why can't we just go, "Welp, this is working, let's maintain where we're at"?
      - paddw 3y ago
        There's no way Discord is profitable.
        jjulius 3y ago
        Then, and I recognize that this is just my opinion, we should just let it die rather than going, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?".
        noirbot 3y ago
        I'm really confused by your attitude that a company giving out a quality free service is some kind of abusive orphanage owner giving out slop to kids here. Like, are you against them making money off of this? This isn't Netflix cutting off shared accounts and ramping up the price every year. This isn't Amazon swindling people into signing up for Prime. This is a company that sells product A also deciding to sell a complimentary product B that they think will help them continue to sell product A at a good price. If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory, I'm not sure how that's a consistent way to interact with modern capitalism at all. Almost every company has loss-leaders or cross-marketing or vertical/horizontal integration. If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News...
  - skeaker 3y ago
    If you read the article that the term you're using actually originates from, it states that a necessary part of enshittification is that it makes the application less useful for users. This change does the opposite and doesn't qualify at all.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      Hence my use of the word "encroachment". I'd be more than happy to eat my hat in a few years if it doesn't happen, but like I said, "pardon my pessimism".
rcxdude 3y ago
Which is neutral or good for users, especially if it subsidises the free chat platform. Patreon doesn't provide anything meaningful to creators or users beyond a payment mechanism (seriously: it is so bad at hosting and presenting the actual content it's increasingly common for creators to just not use it for that. And even if they do post anything but a link on patreon it's still on discord before that)
- jjulius 3y ago
  As I mentioned in the other comment chain, it's the slippery slope of enshittification encroaching upon Discord IMO.
jasonlotito 3y ago
> I'd hardly say they're just making things easier. For users? 100% it just makes things easier. This just makes it easier for users and hopefully overcomes some of the issues with Patreon's integration with Discord. But from a user's perspective (which is what my POV was from and the only one that matters in this context), whether you are paying Patreon or Discord, it doesn't really matter.