6 ms·
Jitsi Meet abandons anonimity promise
- hackan 3y ago[flagged]
- slackfan 3y agoWhat's capitalistic about bowing to the social censorship required? Sure as hell ain't making their product more profitable for the user market. Seems like the market isn't the end users but government monopolies which isn't capitalistic at all.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BizarreByte 3y agoNo, nothing survives pedophiles. Although Jitsi won't admit it directly, it has been strongly hinted CSAM is the reason for the change.
- hackan 3y agoCSAM is a great excuse for a lot of things, in particular to control free speech. It is a real problem, but this is clearly not working.
- yakcyll 3y agoThis was talked about before here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37316959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37316959 I assume this move, in essence, is meant to combat spam?
- ComputerGuru 3y agowhat went unsaid but very heavily implied in the Jitsi announcement was that it was (allegedly) CSAM and not mere spam.
- xulres 3y agoStop with the allegedly it was a anonymous service that was reachable from onion. There is no question at all that there was CSAM shared over it. I don't care about the rest but all this "allegedly" shit in regards of CSAM gets on my nerves. I actually thought people here either work in bigger corps or have experience in running services themselves and would know about the real size of the CSAM problem. But I guess not, ignorance is bliss. Also it's only their hosted for profit service. Use the fsf instance if you feel violated by a user account. https://jitsi.member.fsf.org/ https://jitsi.member.fsf.org/
- ComputerGuru 3y agoI personally think it was likely/almost certainly the case. That doesn’t change the fact that without sufficient actual evidence it remains “allegedly.”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zozbot234 3y agoWell, the announcement talks about clear-cut ToS violations. Maybe it was about illegally streamed soccer matches - that's a bit of a plague as of late.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoPiracy is still the best way/our best chance to get rid of soccer and all the nothingness that it involves in terms of drama, gossip, etc
- deleted 3y ago
- remirk 3y agoI personally have no issue with having to log-in to use the hosted Jitsi and have it store that I created a room. That's a small price to pay for the longevity of the service. If logging in is an issue, you're still able to selfhost Jitsi just fine. Edit: this article feels like blogspam to me. https://jitsi.org/blog/authentication-on-meet-jit-si/ https://jitsi.org/blog/authentication-on-meet-jit-si/ is the source the article refers to.
- throw_pm23 3y agoWhat about having to log in with a Google/Facebook/MS account as opposed to a Jitsi account?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Terretta 3y agoMost such tools can no longer afford their stance once adoption passes a threshold. Why that might be is often revealed on techdirt: - https://www.techdirt.com/edition/freespeech/ https://www.techdirt.com/edition/freespeech/ For other reasons, see also: - https://mattfrisbie.substack.com/p/the-ugly-business-of-monetizing-browser https://mattfrisbie.substack.com/p/the-ugly-business-of-mone... - https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670 https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670
- prmoustache 3y agopeople keep mixing the service and the software it seems.
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoMaking a separate account on Jitsi would have been fine, but they only allow use of existing centralized account systems from github (microsoft), facebook, or google. That's Not Good(tm). Good thing Self-hosting still works I guess. Will have to set it up.
- itake 3y agoSelf hosting isn’t exactly anonymous either.
- rebeccaskinner 3y agoAnonymity is in the eyes of the beholder. In this case, self-hosting might make your interactions "anonymous" in the eyes of Google, Microsoft, or Meta, even if it doesn't make you anonymous to whatever platform you use to host the software.
- redserk 3y agoManaging a public authentication service requires ongoing maintenance and monitoring costs. While they could pay a third party to manage it for them, this is a reasonable decision for them to keep costs low. It doesn’t sound like Jitsi is sending Facebook and Microsoft transcriptions of your meetings so I don’t see why this is a big concern for a free service.
- layer8 3y agoIt requires you to have a Microsoft/Facebook/Google account in the first place.
- LightHugger 3y agoGoogle/microsoft authentication is a platform risk and is basically saying those third parties own all your users. It can and does backfire all the time.
- reflexe 3y agoMaybe it is just my mood, but this blog's full screen newsletter subscription banner on mobile is much more infuriating than whatever Jitsi did (screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/fSEyZ8x https://imgur.com/a/fSEyZ8x)
- moomin 3y agoCould a mod fix the spelling, please?
- zaggynl 3y agoON THE PUBLIC JITSI-MEET DEMO SERVER https://meet.jit.si/ https://meet.jit.si/! Selfhost jitsi-meet! It isn't rocket science: https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/devops-guide/devops-guide-quickstart/ https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/devops-guide/devops-gu...
- sebmaynard 3y agoEven easier with docker/docker-compose https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/devops-guide/devops-guide-docker https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/devops-guide/devops-gu...
- philipwhiuk 3y ago"Other Site Abandons Anonymity" says website which puts large "Sign Up" prompts on first-use and below every article. Slightly hypocritical reclaimthenet
- m-p-3 3y agoThat's what happen when awful people abuse nice things. Those bad actors and privacy-conscious people (both entirely distinct group, just in case it looks like I'm putting those two in the same category..) can still self-host their own Jitsi Meet server if they want to.
- snowstormsun 3y agoIsn't webrtc leaking the IPs of call participants anyways, regardless of which service?
- Sean-Der 3y agoIf you are going through Jitsi (a SFU) all your media goes through them. If you are doing P2P then you will be able to get the remote's IP address.