15 ms·

Authentication on meet.jit.si

• skeptrune 3y ago
  This sucks
• istillwritecode 3y ago
  I just stopped using it. I can understand that they might have had problems with abuse, but I won't use any of their authentication options.
• saurik 3y ago
  As seen at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37258646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37258646 (along with some helpful suggestions).
• rvz 3y ago
  > Starting on August 24th, we will no longer support the anonymous creation of rooms on meet.jit.si, and will require the use of an account (we will be supporting Google, GitHub and Facebook for starters but may modify the list later on). So Jitsi loses the case for privacy and goes and requires Big tech logins such as Google, GitHub (Microsoft), Facebook (Meta). Oh dear.
  • CommitSyn 3y ago
    It's the unfortunate battle of those who want to provide privacy, and those who want to use the privacy to do illegal things that will either get said things shut down, or cost them a lot of money (or freedom). Having been on both sides, we need more decentralization and a way to disconnect From those decentralized points. Not much else can be done besides a never ending game of cat and mouse.
    • throwaway290 3y ago
      How to make sure decentralization doesn't enable more of those illegal things?
      • CommitSyn 3y ago
        You don't. Because you can't. Those illegal things are going to exist as long as there is a market for them. All you can do is ensure that the general public who doesn't wish to partake isn't exposed to it without looking. Basically, you don't want your grandma finding the drug list or hacking tools unless she's specifically trying to find it. But it's going to exist, so let it exist (or rather, try if you wish but it's futile). Similar to tor hidden services and i2p eepsites.
    • chrisco255 3y ago
      I doubt this is due to illegal things. There's kind of a limit to how much you can do illegally on a video feed. Nevermind that whatever you would be doing would be recorded and streamed to whoever popped into the anonymous room. The auth requirement is probably just a way to limit load and force people to at least attach their usage rates with an identity of some kind, so if one person or org is using thousands of hours of server load they can start charging for the service.
      • BaseballPhysics 3y ago
        > I doubt this is due to illegal things. There's kind of a limit to how much you can do illegally on a video feed. ... are... are you joking?!
      • throwaway290 3y ago
        I am dead sure it is about illegal things based on their phrasing. The kind of things that don't even appear on Zoom's Wikipedia even though Zoom is/was used for the same per documented evidence. Companies won't mention it because it's very bad publicity and other people won't pursue it because it's 2PTSD (or for some 1PTSD) material. Your comment is phrased like those things are not a big deal? > There's kind of a limit to how much you can do illegally on a video feed. Nevermind that whatever you would be doing would be recorded and streamed to whoever popped into the anonymous room. Criminals probably are aware that some of their customers would be cops after somebody got arrested for doing it over Zoom and they probably learned to do it without revealing identifiable details. And how would viewers pop in into a random room? There's no directory. They have a link that they paid for. And no, they wouldn't share this link with random people online.
        • chrisco255 3y ago
          What was it used for? Live streaming a crime in progress on a publicly accessible URL? Live streaming illegal content as if a torrent isn't already a superior format for that? As if 8x8's hosted Jitsi service could not just report such crimes to the authorities with full IP logs? The signalling all still had to route through 8x8 servers and the URLs were not gated. Anyone with a link could pop in.
  • zootboy 3y ago
    Oh dear, indeed. Why not offer the option to make an account directly? That would offer at least some solace that your data is not being shared outside the walls of 8x8.
    • ggm 3y ago
      because AAA is a cost, and now we have some of the A provided externally, its a lower cost to say "validate over here" than it is to roll your own. Cost including doing it right, meeting KYC/AML/Age barriers which incur legal risk, and having to front on your community and say "sorry, we lost all your private data in a hack"
      • chrisco255 3y ago
        Not really, you just ask for a credit card.
        • ggm 3y ago
          remind me, do people roll their own CC handling or does the PCI rules drive you to ... using another intermediary in card processing, because of the giant risks?
          • noduerme 3y ago
            Dealing with PCI means you basically have to rely on the payment processor to store the card and customer data. Intermediaries like Square and Stripe require this and make it easy. It's been a long time since I built anything that spoke directly to a card gateway (i.e. merchant bank) but I'd be pretty shocked if any didn't force you to use their iframe/storage/token solution at this point. Back in the late 90s, e-commerce sites used to just take the customer card numbers in plaintext and pass them to the VeriSign gateway and basically roll their own APIs.
  • neilv 3y ago
    I went to check this, but it won't even minimally load the authentication page without loading Firebase JS from `www.gstatic.com` (which I block by default, so that I notice when sites are leaking like this). Jitsi having to do things like this might be inevitable. But I still have a look of disapproval for whomever was abusing the service.
  • doublerabbit 3y ago
    Shame. I use none of those services.
  • 7sidedmarble 3y ago
    It's literally open source, you can go run it yourself.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• gnicholas 3y ago
  > Earlier this year we saw an increase in the number of reports we received about some people using our service in ways that we cannot tolerate. To be more clear, this was not about some people merely saying things that others disliked. That’s only slightly more clear, since it just says what’s not happening. Does anyone know what is happening? Does it involve potential violations of law, or is it just the TOS?
  • zootboy 3y ago
    My guess would be pornography. That seems like the most obvious use of a video calling service, and something that would cause them to run afoul of various legal requirements (e.g. age verification / records keeping).
    • duskwuff 3y ago
      > My guess would be pornography. Sexually explicit "meetings" wouldn't even be a particularly surprising use case, and 18 USC 2257 has a bunch of carve-outs for service providers. My suspicion is that there was CSAM or similarly abhorrent content being broadcast in meetings. Unfortunately, this is a class of users which would be drawn to a service which promised anonymity and E2E encryption.
      • xcdzvyn 3y ago
        Similar services are used for sharing revenge porn, so I absolutely believe it happens with CSAM too.
  • throwaway290 3y ago
    just remember some ways in which Zoom was used.
    • ggm 3y ago
      Zoom... 25 years ago I left an MBONE service running unsupervised and changed roles. 6 months later a colleague sent me the dic pix that were being shared in low-fi B&W slowscan MBONE video.
• koito17 3y ago
  I was getting login pages last week when attempting to start meetings. Ironically, this led me to self-hosting Jitsi with the Jitsi Helm chart and putting it behind oauth2-proxy so my friends and I can use it. Deploying Jitsi with the Helm chart is remarkably simple and does not consume that much memory. If anyone is interested in self-hosting: 2 GB is my RAM usage on idle when running videobridge, web-ui, prosody, and oauth2-proxy atop k3s in its default configuration. You do have to open a stupidly large range of ports to UDP traffic for videobridge, though. With that said, it's been a reliable solution and does not need me or my friends to create $BIGTECH account.
  • unmole 3y ago
    > does not need me or my friends to create $BIGTECH account. So, who is the OAuth provider?
    • koito17 3y ago
      Our own private, self-hosted Forgejo instance that we use often enough that using it as an identity provider is not a big hassle :) If you have no cookies or expired ones, oauth2-proxy will take you a page with a simple "Log in with OpenID Connect" button, which then takes you to the login page of the Forgejo instance. If you're not logged in, then you provide your credentials. Otherwise, you get redirected back to Jitsi with cookies that are good for a week.
      • ofrzeta 3y ago
        I didn't remember, so I had to Google: Forgejo is the recent Gitea fork that itself is a Gogs fork. To save some people some clicks. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34011581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34011581
        • zx8080 3y ago
          Forgeto
    • ahoka 3y ago
• throwaway290 3y ago
  Just as I started using it from Zulip. I guess they encountered some kind of abuse.
• fswd 3y ago
  we moved over to talk.brave.com
  • CA0DA 3y ago
    This is a Jitsi instance hosted by Brave, right?
    • fswd 3y ago
      No, it's even better. Check out the UI/UX!
• wrp 3y ago
  I had a video conference scheduled a few days ago with Jitsi. Ran into this problem so we quickly searched for an alternative. We couldn't get www.experte.com working. Tried we.team and it worked great. In fact, it didn't have the frequent freezing we had been experiencing with Jitsi.
• toastal 3y ago
  A bonus to self-hosting is now you’ll have an XMPP server you & your chatmates & org can use for decentralized, federated chat—may as well add a new virtualhost & ditch that proprietary chat option.
  • TechBro8615 3y ago
    I have a server and it's decentralized? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Wake me up when my teammates and I can message each other from our mobile devices without the involvement of any other computer...
    • BaseballPhysics 3y ago
      Just because you define "decentralized" as strictly "peer-to-peer" doesn't mean everyone does. Wikipedia literally uses the word "decentralized" to describe the Fediverse, which would seem to violate your personal definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse > While a traditional social networking site will host all its content on servers owned by the parent company, the decentralized social media sites that make up the fediverse allow any individual or organization to host their own servers (referred to as an "instance").
    • networkchad 3y ago
      [dead]
    • nvy 3y ago
      >Wake me up when my teammates and I can message each other from our mobile devices without the involvement of any other computer... Routers are computers. You'll be waiting a long time.
      • planede 3y ago
        You already can, apart from some DHT and bootstrapping stuff. https://tox.chat/ https://tox.chat/ https://jami.net/ https://jami.net/ I tried to like Jami, but it never worked right when I tried it. I didn't find a decent Android Tox client with video call, but it should work alright for text.
• KingOfCoders 3y ago
  Just moved there from Zoom, what a nasty suprise these days that I need to register when I wanted a meeting.
• otachack 3y ago
  This is rough for Jitsi / 8x8. Requiring a login puts them at a level of "why not just use Google Meet?" to me unless you go through hoops to self host. I'm down to experiment with self hosting, I just feel that most users out there won't be and it'll ding their user count. It might be for the best if it squashes the malpractice they are seeing.
  • cryptonector 3y ago
    > Requiring a login puts them at a level of "why not just use Google Meet?" to me [...] Because... it's not Google? For some people that may be a plus.
    • jraph 3y ago
      But they are requiring a Google, a Microsoft or a Facebook account, so it is Google (or BigCorp which also has its video conference systems). I'm not judging, but on my side it's hard to justify using meet.jit.si anymore.
      • gwd 3y ago
        Playing around with it briefly, it looks like the login is only required to create the room. Our project uses Jitsi for a lot of official meetings, primarily because it's open-source. If it required everyone to log in, that would be more of an issue for us; but as long as the people running the meetings don't mind authenticating with Google, I don't think it will be a problem.
      • kevincox 3y ago
        Yeah, I would be much happier if I could create a separate account not linked to any BigCorp. Just let me pick a username and password. But I guess they are trying to defer some sort of account creation human verification/rate limiting to those companies.
      • cryptonector 3y ago
        Sure, that means those companies could impersonate users to jit.si, but that would be quite something, so I suspect they wouldn't -- at least for now. So you might trust jit.si with your meetings even though you might not trust Google with your meetings even if you trust Google for authenticating you to jit.si.
• BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  Fascinating reading the angry comments here. Don't blame Jitsi. Blame the people abusing their previously wide open service. They're why we can't have nice things. As for expecting them to run their own auth service instead of relying on a third party, that is a hell of a lot more complex than it looks. I can't blame them for not wanting to take that on. If you really disagree that much, go ahead and fire up your own Jitsi service and open it up for anonymous use by the public. Let's see how long you can run it before you encounter the exact same problems.
  • Almondsetat 3y ago
    Nobody is complaining about the login requirements per se, we are complaining about the fact that a supposedly "privacy friendly" and FOSS service chose to implement a login system using only Google, Facebook and GitHub accounts and god knows when they'll add better options.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • BaseballPhysics 3y ago
      ffs, they're OAuth providers. It's not like they're passing the video streams over to Google and Facebook so they can mine them for PII. All they'll learn is that a user with an identity on their platform is using Jitsi. So what? Meanwhile, the vast majority of users around here will have a GitHub or Google account, and probably Facebook as well. This is hardly much of an inconvenience. And if the complaint is that now Jitsi can tie back activity to a durable identity: yeah, that's the entire point. They're fighting abuse. At some level, to prevent that abuse, they need some form of trustworthy authentication. That, by definition, means to some extent piercing the veil of anonymity. It's also why running their own auth doesn't fundamentally solve the problem, as anonymous users creating their own accounts on their platform is a minor speed bump to folks who would use the service for nefarious activity. For that auth to be worth anything, they'd have to engage in their own forms of user verification, and that'd be no more privacy protective, and frankly probably less so since you'd have to trust their security posture. The fact is they simply cannot run the service in a way that's both perfectly anonymous to Jitsi themselves and simultaneously resistant to abuse (thereby protecting them from potential liability). Look, I get it, I'm not a fan of the big tech providers, either. But the claim that this somehow crosses the privacy rubicon is a massive overreaction. And the software itself remains as Free and Open Source as it ever was.
• superkuh 3y ago
  Does this mean that Riot.im/Element.io Matrix.org homeserver accounts on the web application won't be able to use the service automagically for video calls of greater than 2?
  • driminicus 3y ago
    They host their own jitsi instance.
• LWIRVoltage 3y ago
  Ever since early in the pandemic, i've pointed friends who were worried about certain things- in the direction of Jitsi so they coudl safely discuss options without a time limit(which Zoom and Meet implemented) with others. Think conversations like discussion of abortion, and other things where the service in certain locations needed to be private to the point subpoenas wouldn't be a threat. This is also why they've been waiting for insertable streams to be fully implemented in Firefox- those tickets were pushed most heavily because of Jitsi's videocalling. This was driven by when they implemented an end to end encryption option- and being open source , something people could feel safer about than trusting Meet's (the former Duo)'s one on one calls. The best part is this was something you could bring up on any computer. Signal , you need to own the device- Jitsi was more free than Signal in some ways- and of course it helps not being tied to a identifier(Signal has not yet implemented removing phone numbers as an identifier) -Does this mean there's no free, end to end encrypted anonymous alternative that would be useful for those who are not technically inclined- but worry about Subpoenas, and need end to end encryption? That's as accessible(Jitsi was from a simple web interface no matter your device, alternatives like Jami and Meet aren't - and the account thing hurts) Because trusting a Github, Google ,or Facebook login to not be vulnerable to subpoenas - is a nonstarter. ( I am aware of the efforts of Google, Facebook, etc to mass E2EE communications from test messages to all messenger messages - I don't think this is immune to legal/coercive efforts such as you might see in the UK/Australia, and also think the anonymity layer is going to be the crucial for some people. ...I'm aware ease of use plays a role in abuse- but i'll point out bad actors(who are technically capable at least a little apparently) have the resources to still abuse Jitsi(if someone had an axe to grind against Jitsi) regardless of these additions- [example:Google accounts can be still mass created anonymously via Android phones/burner phones /etc] I dislike this, having been banging my head against the wall given my efforts over the past few years to teach end to end encrypted options and their usage to those who need them most, for the mentioned reasons. For now I will resort to bugging people to switch to other instances at https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/community/community-instances/ https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/community/community-in... - but we badly need more options just as accessible- what other E2EE anonymous web-browser accessible tool is as available to the masses, that they can be convinced to use?
  • 3y ago
• victorbjorklund 3y ago
  Too bad but not suprised.
• Roark66 3y ago
  Wait, isn't jitsi open source? If so anyone can host their own server and disable the auth right? If so, why the anger?
  • throw_pm23 3y ago
    Because hosting my own server and disabling the auth is about 1000 times the effort of clicking "start a new meeting" on their website. I don't get these "why can't you just..." comments. It's like you complain about food in the restaurant, and someone saying: "well, you can cook your own lunch at home differently".
    • BaseballPhysics 3y ago
      No, this is like a restaurant giving you free food, and then when they change the recipe, you saying "WTF, you changed the food and now it's too salty, I hate it. Yeah, I could cook my own meal, but screw that, I demand you fix it!"
      • quickthrower2 3y ago
        VC funded world in a nutshell
  • Vinnl 3y ago
    From the article: > That said, it is completely understandable that some users may feel uncomfortable using an account to access the service. For such cases we strongly recommend hosting your own deployment of Jitsi Meet. We spend a lot of effort to keep that a very simple process and this has always been the mode of use that gives people the highest degree of privacy. Of course, self-hosting is still a bunch of work. Which doesn't mean anger is justified, but disappointment (which seems to be the dominant emotion at the time of writing) is understandable.
  • Aachen 3y ago
    I'm not seeing much anger, just disappointment that you now need to be an experienced system administrator to have Jitsi meetings without signing up for a bigcorp. Imo the problem here is a failure of law enforcement on the internet. IP addresses + timestamps can be tracked to a subscriber, but apparently it's so ineffective that, rather than allowing pseudonymity (only knowing your IP address) for all countries that fight digital crime (I imagine child abuse is similarly fought in most places), we instead opt to let the likes of Google and Facebook use tracking and magic algorithms to determine who's allowed to have an account, nay, identity on the internet. Perhaps we need something that is pseudonymous but tied to an individual rather than a subscriber line, to be depseudononymised only by court order, similar to IP address now except you can actually find who did something (or was complicit at minimum, similar to money mules). We can also make it be different for every recipient, similar to how you can create any number of blockchain addresses without revealing the tie between them. It sounds super dystopian to have an internet passport (private key) explicitly tied to a government identity, but at this point it may improve anonymity rather than detract from it. We could get rid of CAPTCHAs (which are mostly ineffective at this point anyway), Cloudflare MITMing, IP address banning, phone number verification, "log in with Facebook", spam filters (because we'd just block spammers), etc. in favor of being able to prosecute and/or block bad actors.
• TobyTheDog123 3y ago
  Well on the bright side, hopefully this incentivizes Jitsi to finally put first-class OIDC support into the codebase, which it still lacks. I don't want to set up an entire LDAP server when I already have Authelia running.
• jimworm 3y ago
  The popup window login with the many different domains doesn't work with isolation on. Hope they don't take the random meeting name (the last anonymous option) away.
• p-e-w 3y ago
  Why exactly do I still need a middleman in 2023 to talk to someone else's computer? Is NAT the only reason? Also, why exactly did we introduce IPv6 again? Everything today is NAT-within-NAT-within-NAT (much of it using IPv4), and almost nobody has a publicly routable IP address. Was the whole transition just a massive waste of effort?
  • creshal 3y ago
    > Also, why exactly did we introduce IPv6 again? I sure wish my (small, rural) ISP finally did. They're still "evaluating" it.
    • Nextgrid 3y ago
      This is quite trivial to work around by just tunneling/VPN'ing to a IPv6 tunnel broker. Yes it's not really efficient but it will work especially if the only thing you use it for is communications. It's actually no different to TURN (if you were behind a restrictive NAT), just that your TURN provider is now the tunnel broker and is independent of your communications service. The problem is that there's no money to be made here, so no software is built to take advantage of end-to-end connectivity. Even if you could get IPv6 right now (and you can with tunneling/VPN), what are you going to do with it? Big tech is quite happy with the loss of end-to-end connectivity since it enforces the need for a middleman, and they have no reason to make it easier for you to regain your independence. The ISP is still "evaluating" IPv6 because there's just no real end-user demand because besides ideology or specific requirements of a technical minority there just isn't any reason for the average user to need it. If tomorrow every OS came with a built-in SIP client that actually worked and there was an actual successful deployment of consumer-grade SIP, demand for IPv6 would skyrocket and the ISP would get their act together or start losing customers over it. But there will never be a built-in SIP client because Big Tech would rather have you use FaceTime or MS Teams or Skype than some open protocol that doesn't require a middleman nor isn't vulnerable to advertising nor tracking.
  • boramalper 3y ago
    I reckon it’s also expensive to stream your audio/video to N different participants in a peer-to-peer fashion.
• j45 3y ago
  Does this mean the self-hosted version of Jitsi will have authentication by default and not a free to use instance?
• turblety 3y ago
  I'm certain this is just an excuse so they can monetize and then sell out. First step auth, second step payments/subscriptions/premium/whatever, third step sold to a big corp where it will be destroyed. But anyway, for anyone wanting an alternative peercalls has been really reliable for us.
• quickthrower2 3y ago
  Are JaaS user’s users affected?
• jokoon 3y ago
  What can't they provide their own login instead of using Facebook Google GitHub?
  • quickthrower2 3y ago
    I guess those services already treat identity seriously, making a trade off where you swap some end user privacy for a free as in beer system that on the whole tries to prevent sock puppet accounts.
  • dathinab 3y ago
    They need login to effectively ban people. Using email login doesn't archive that (and is more work). Using providers like Facebook, Google, GitHub is good enough, through e.g. in case of GitHub definitely not perfect. But good enough is good enough. I just which there would be more anonymity protecting *independent* auth providers you could widely use (which still could allow you to properly ban someone).
  • justsomehnguy 3y ago
    A lot of work and regulation
• solarkraft 3y ago
  Ouch, ouch, ouch. The beauty of Jitsi Meet was that any URL was a valid room. That was such great UX. Of course, other Jitsi Meet instances still exist. But this will probably still influence the project's direction.
  • gwd 3y ago
    Having just played around with it: It still is; the only difference is that everyone is left "waiting for a moderator" until one person clicks "Log in", and jumps through the hoops to let Jitsi use one of their logins (which is pretty quick if you're already logged in). Not great, but it does at least give some accountability.
  • seydor 3y ago
    Hopefully towards the direction of making self-hosting easy for everyone
  • WhyNotHugo 3y ago
    I think it would have been best if they simply shut down their official instance, instead of gating it only to Google/Facebook users. There's still plenty of other instances out there, and it would give a far less ambiguous message if they just pointed people to community-maintained instances. Moving to a "we only serve Google/MS users" while claiming a focus on privacy definitely doesn't send out the right message
• hilbert42 3y ago
  I no longer have any Big Tech accounts and I've not had a Zoom account for all the reasons why many of us want to rid ourselves of those environments. It's people like me who actually need Jitsi. What makes it worse, I've been almost successful in weening friends and colleagues off Zoom and that's no easy task. Now it's all for nought. Damn nuisance really.
  • aembleton 3y ago
    You could self host it
    • hilbert42 3y ago
      Yes, perhaps I could but I'd be a nuisance. For many others, the general public, it's unlikely to be a viable option.
• dathinab 3y ago
  I hadn't really used it recently but I'm honestly surprised that they went that long without requiring authentication. If you know a bit about mitigation of various abuse patterns it's kinda crazy that they managed to not needing to require it until now. Through I hope they have a way for registered people to invite someone to join a meeting without a login (through with a bunch of limitations, like them being responsible for the person joining). For example so that in case of a remote job interview the company can give them to the interviewee.
  • gwd 3y ago
    > Through I hope they have a way for registered people to invite someone to join a meeting without a login (through with a bunch of limitations, like them being responsible for the person joining). I just played around with it now; it looks like login is only required to create the room -- that is, only one person at all needs to log in. Everyone else gets a "waiting for the moderator" screen before someone logs in, and just goes straight in w/o login afterwards. Presumably that person will the ability to kick people out, and can be held responsible for not doing so.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• pietroppeter 3y ago
  > we will no longer support the anonymous creation of rooms on meet.jit.si, and will require the use of an account if I understand correctly the creator of the meeting needs to have an account but other people can still join without it?
  • tome 3y ago
    As far as I know there is no "creator of a meeting" in Jitsi. It's just a case of the first person to sign in as moderator gets to be the moderator.
• brightlancer 3y ago
  They only require ONE person to have an account. The other participants can join as before. The meeting continues even if the person with the account leaves; as long as someone stays in the room, it persists and people can (re)join. I don't like this change but their free (beer) service is still more respectful than GOOG Meet or MSFT Teams.
• playday 3y ago
  Unfortunate but not surprising. It’s impossible to put up a 0 cost service on the net without it getting abused.
  • psychoslave 3y ago
    They didn’t say it will stop to be 0 cost for end users. Their concern here is with filtering what users violating their terms of service, not providing it for free.
    • playday 3y ago
      Using Google or Facebook is a cost, it’s around $10-20 to get an account.
      • Cyphase 3y ago
        Is this a reference to needing a phone number?
• CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  People will just start making/using dummy accounts to create meetings if they don't want them tied to their real identities. KYC has gotten wildly out of control.
• jesprenj 3y ago
  Maybe a list of community hosted jitsi servers could be put in place. One instance that our national educational network organization hosts is at https://vid.arnes.si./ https://vid.arnes.si./
  • CA0DA 3y ago
    https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/community/community-instances/ https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/community/community-in...
• teekert 3y ago
  Hmm missed opportunity for a passkey method.
• sourcepluck 3y ago
  https://www.fsf.org/associate/about-the-fsf-jitsi-meet-server https://www.fsf.org/associate/about-the-fsf-jitsi-meet-serve... If one becomes an associate member of the FSF, one of the perks is access to a Jitsi server that they run. It's two clicks and you're in, easy peasy. I'm very grateful. I give classes over webcam and it does not let me down.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • raybb 3y ago
    That's a nice perk! According to their site: Annual Associate Member - $USD 120.00
• seydor 3y ago
  Just wish it was easier to setup a self-hosted server. It was easier to setup a red5 server in the 2000s than it is to setup a webrtc server in 2023
• enkursigilo 3y ago
  You can still create room without login. Just click "book a meeting URL" at https://meet.jit.si/ https://meet.jit.si/ which redirects to https://moderated.jitsi.net/ https://moderated.jitsi.net/ and there you can create room without any authorization.
  • kevincox 3y ago
    This seems like an oversight that will presumably be fixed?
• pabloarteel 3y ago
  https://keet.io/ https://keet.io/ seems like an interesting replacement. P2P has it's hurdles but removes the centralized point of failure.
• saghul 3y ago
  Hey all Jitsi dev here. It hasn’t been an easy few days, thanks a lot for the empathetic comments I’ve seen here. We’ll keep moving forward making (hopefully) the best open source meetings tool out there. To answer a few recurring questions: - Only the first user needs to be authenticated - This change does not affect the self-hosted deployments, you can choose what auth (or none at all) to use
  • AnonC 3y ago
    > Only the first user needs to be authenticated Is it the first user to join the meeting (so it could be the host or a guest)? Or is it the person who created the room (and may likely be the first person to join the room)? I’m glad to get this answer here, but it’d be useful to document this on your help or support pages and share the link as well.
    • saghul 3y ago
      Rooms are created by the first user who joins. Since the room won’t start without users, the first one will need to log-in or wait for someone else to do so.
• vasanthv 3y ago
  Checkout https://tlk.li https://tlk.li which is free, p2p and open source.