This article has a few primary arguments for not using Discord—
because it is proprietary software
because it has poor accessibility
because control over moderation and other administrative tools is ultimately in the hands of Discord rather than the community.
I know this opinion is going to be unpopular but here I go anyway.
Other than the accessibility argument, I find these arguments quite weak. Yes, Discord is proprietary software, but the reason it’s used is because a lot of people are familiar with it and many people already have Discord accounts.
Although I’m a firm supporter of free software, I also believe that it’s more important to use the right software for the job than to idealistically use inferior software just because it happens to be open-source. And yes, I regard most of the alternatives to Discord listed in the article to be inferior solely because they are unfamiliar to users. Sometimes, the superior choice happens to be proprietary and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. That’s the way it is sometimes; you can’t win every fight, as much as you’d like to.
If your goal is to foster a community of regular users and make it easy for normal users to interact with contributors, there is no choice that will hamper that goal more than using an obscure alternative software that nobody’s heard of.
With respect to chat logs and administration tools… for the most part, nobody cares. Discord’s tools are sufficient for most groups and few people consider the drawbacks to outweigh the other benefits.
The strongest argument for me is that discord is commercial, borne of venture capital spent on operating at a loss for years to gain users. It is therefore bound for a turn towards profit and enshittification, sooner, rather than later.
Very true, but self-hosting isn’t free either, so there are maintenance/moderation/etc costs that take away time from the project. Small projects often just cant justify selfhosting.
But if your service is hosted by a third party, you really do want to be sure they will be around in the near future. And its not just chat that this applies to, git hosting, web hosting, ci/cd etc.
You don’t need to selfhost most of those. There’s IRC and webpage providers everywhere (you can literally walk into a cpanel hosting and click the button that says “make me a Wordpress”, for example). After all, I’m sure your product has an email account, yet you are not selfhosting your e-mail, do you? And you release your software via what, Github? Flatpak? Lemme see, are you selfhosting those too?
You’ve come full circle. Of course there are hosting providers everywhere, but there are no guarentees that they will still exist in the future. And if your not selfhosting, then you have to pay someone to host it for you, whereas Discord and Github are free.
And a small subsection of the “dont use discord” crowd are equally against using Github for many of the same reasons.
To be clear, I am completely okay with Discord, Github etc for foss projects.
So long as you don’t buy into a platform’s proprietary features, you should be able to easily migrate if the basis is on a open technology. For instance, if you are using Git as your VCS, you can rehost it elsewhere easily. If your chat is on IRC and Freenode goes down, it wasn’t difficult to move to another platform as communities did. If you buy into Discord, you’re SoL for porting data out or having an easy way to transition to I different room/server since you have to migrate to a different protocol. If you start relying on Microsoft GitHub’s Issues, Action, Sponsors, etc. then you will also feel equally as locked in even if the fundamental system, Git is trivial to migrate.
Could chat histories get transitioned from Freenode onwards? Because that is the major issue I see with using Discord, projects often use chat history as a “wiki” of sorts. If you did the same thing on IRC, wouldn’t you be equally SOL? I dont think switching the protocol is the problem, its leaving behind the historical data?
Idk about infinite, if they stop getting updates they will eventually get phased out and if you can’t download the application it’s also dead. All that aside the sun is going to go super nova eventually.
Also a lot of people don’t want to self host. I doubt you self host your own Lemmy instance for instance.
I wouldn’t mind hosting my own lemmy instance either, but as it’s a public platform anyway I don’t have the same qualms about using an instance hosted by someone else. So I opted not to take on any more work on that.
Not everyone needs to self host, you might get away with knowing someone who does. And no, I wouldn’t accept a nextcloud account hosted by just anyone, but my siblings and parents happily utilize ones provided by me.
And back when teamspeak, mumble, ventrilo, minecraft servers, cs servers, etc. all had to be “self-hosted” there were plenty of service providers who would do all the technical work for the layman, in exchange for direct payment. Making all those services quite accessible to anyone.
That was so much better than how today we “pay” by getting datamined.
Why not? How do you expect to realize a fair and good internet, controlled by its users instead of corporations driven by motives far removed from what is in the interest of users, or even humanity as a species?
You still don’t have to, I’ll do it. But someone has to. Would you donate to your own instance?
Unless I’m misreading this, your argument seems to be that software freedom is irrelevant in the face of technical superiority or popularity. That’s exactly the opposite of “firm support” in my view.
I’ll offer a counterpoint to the “best tool for the job” thing: before git existed, Linux development relied on a proprietary VCS called Bitkeeper. Licenses for Bitkeeper were “graciously” donated for gratis by the Bitkeeper developer. Andrew Tridgell, who was not party to the Bitkeeper EULA, telneted to a Bitkeeper server and typed “help”. The Bitkeeper developer, in retaliation, revoked the Linux developers’ gratis license to use the proprietary “best tool for the job.” This was what forced Linus to develop git, which became the most widely used VCS in the free software world. (read: Thank You, Larry McVoy by Richard Stallman)
Proprietary tools can seem to be useful in the moment but developing a dependency on them, and encouraging their use, is dangerous. Discord might seem like “the best tool for the job” until it enshittifies, just like its predecessors did, and just like its successors inevitably will. We’ve seen it happen often enough.
It would be easier to leave if you started by using a platform that made that seamless. Freenode gets bought & communities say to point your bouncers/clients to Libera.chat or OFTC. If you were on XMPP on a decentralized account, your account stays, but now there’s a new MUC to join. With Discord, if Discord goes down, so does the client & the whole server… folks need to relearn a bunch of stuff & it’s not a clean break.
This is also inevitable as we are talking about a US-based, VC-funded service & we have the entire track record of these types of services declining. Why not start with something that’s more likely to not suck in 5 or 10 years even if it doesn’t have all the same features so long as you can still chat in realtime.
Agree, wholeheartedly and reasons I want to avoid Discord et al.
I do communicate my expectations rather cynically in case a community is starting and does have a choice in the beginning.
Lies, according to the rest of your very own post.
it’s more important to use the right software for the job than to
Discord literally doesn’t allow me to google (or DDG, or searx, or…) for solutions related to your software. How is that the right tool to use?
And yes, I regard most of the alternatives to Discord listed in the article to be inferior solely because they are unfamiliar to users.
Fallacy of popularity. If something is “”“inferior”“” simply because people have not been trained on them already, then by your definition Windows is superior to everything else. Remember: big corpo trains you to depend on them since childhood in schools, which all use Office.
That’s the way it is sometimes; you can’t win every fight,
Not with that attitude. That is, the one of a loser.
If your goal is to foster a community of regular users and make it easy for normal users to interact with contributors, there is no choice that will hamper that goal more than using an obscure alternative software that nobody’s heard of.
That would be true f people were literally doing that. But no, the stack of software that includes stuff like IRC, goode olde web forums, Stack Overflow-like webpages or friggin’ email has existed since the '80s and can be not by any reasonable metric be called “obscure” or “alternative” or “nobody’s heard of”.
Remember: big corpo trains you to depend on them since childhood in schools, which all use Office.
lmao I remember getting schooled by a math teacher when I tried to use libreoffice calc instead of excel on an assignment back in highschool
detail: all the school computers ran linux. fuck whoever didn’t have a pc with windows at home
she brought her windows laptop and attached it to the projector and expected everyone to have the assignment files in a format excel could read
problem is, at least going 12 years back, not all calc functions and/or param names translate directly to excel ones
so when she opened the file, which I made sure was one excel could read, there was a bunch of gibberish on some cells
when I told her it worked as intended on libreoffice, she said something along the lines of: you don’t go to church using the same clothes that you use when going to a nightclub
anyway, at least the school was trying not to depend on windows
With due respect, you do not have the authority to dictate what it means for me to support free software. Nor anyone else.
When it comes to community-building and social networking, the popularity metric is absolutely an important consideration. If you are choosing where to start the official community for your software project, and you choose an obscure service, people will make unofficial communities in the more popular services, and you end up with all the supposed drawbacks anyway. Normal non-technical users who are looking to join a community won’t prefer an official community on a service they’ve never used before to an unofficial community on a popular service. That’s why people make unofficial user subreddits and community Discord servers. Those unofficial communities could and in many cases will outgrow the official community. This has happened many times before and will happen many times again. Then, new users, even if they see both, will see an unofficial community on, say, Reddit with many more users than the official one, and when this happens, developers either start participating in the unofficial community posting announcements and whatnot there, and if that happens, there becomes little reason to join the official community.
This article has a few primary arguments for not using Discord—
I know this opinion is going to be unpopular but here I go anyway.
Other than the accessibility argument, I find these arguments quite weak. Yes, Discord is proprietary software, but the reason it’s used is because a lot of people are familiar with it and many people already have Discord accounts.
Although I’m a firm supporter of free software, I also believe that it’s more important to use the right software for the job than to idealistically use inferior software just because it happens to be open-source. And yes, I regard most of the alternatives to Discord listed in the article to be inferior solely because they are unfamiliar to users. Sometimes, the superior choice happens to be proprietary and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. That’s the way it is sometimes; you can’t win every fight, as much as you’d like to.
If your goal is to foster a community of regular users and make it easy for normal users to interact with contributors, there is no choice that will hamper that goal more than using an obscure alternative software that nobody’s heard of.
With respect to chat logs and administration tools… for the most part, nobody cares. Discord’s tools are sufficient for most groups and few people consider the drawbacks to outweigh the other benefits.
The strongest argument for me is that discord is commercial, borne of venture capital spent on operating at a loss for years to gain users. It is therefore bound for a turn towards profit and enshittification, sooner, rather than later.
The flip-side of that argument is that “librefosschat” alternative might also be dead next year when it runs out of money :/
At least commercial vc enshitiffied stuff tends to get ridden into the ground, so there is a long offramp.
Not really. Something you can self-host, like irc, xmpp or matrix, has an infinite offramp.
Very true, but self-hosting isn’t free either, so there are maintenance/moderation/etc costs that take away time from the project. Small projects often just cant justify selfhosting.
But if your service is hosted by a third party, you really do want to be sure they will be around in the near future. And its not just chat that this applies to, git hosting, web hosting, ci/cd etc.
You don’t need to selfhost most of those. There’s IRC and webpage providers everywhere (you can literally walk into a cpanel hosting and click the button that says “make me a Wordpress”, for example). After all, I’m sure your product has an email account, yet you are not selfhosting your e-mail, do you? And you release your software via what, Github? Flatpak? Lemme see, are you selfhosting those too?
You’ve come full circle. Of course there are hosting providers everywhere, but there are no guarentees that they will still exist in the future. And if your not selfhosting, then you have to pay someone to host it for you, whereas Discord and Github are free.
And a small subsection of the “dont use discord” crowd are equally against using Github for many of the same reasons.
To be clear, I am completely okay with Discord, Github etc for foss projects.
So long as you don’t buy into a platform’s proprietary features, you should be able to easily migrate if the basis is on a open technology. For instance, if you are using Git as your VCS, you can rehost it elsewhere easily. If your chat is on IRC and Freenode goes down, it wasn’t difficult to move to another platform as communities did. If you buy into Discord, you’re SoL for porting data out or having an easy way to transition to I different room/server since you have to migrate to a different protocol. If you start relying on Microsoft GitHub’s Issues, Action, Sponsors, etc. then you will also feel equally as locked in even if the fundamental system, Git is trivial to migrate.
Could chat histories get transitioned from Freenode onwards? Because that is the major issue I see with using Discord, projects often use chat history as a “wiki” of sorts. If you did the same thing on IRC, wouldn’t you be equally SOL? I dont think switching the protocol is the problem, its leaving behind the historical data?
Idk about infinite, if they stop getting updates they will eventually get phased out and if you can’t download the application it’s also dead. All that aside the sun is going to go super nova eventually.
Also a lot of people don’t want to self host. I doubt you self host your own Lemmy instance for instance.
IRC works since decades, same for XMPP. I think that is a pretty strong indication that it will continue to work just fine.
And not everyone needs to self host, like one in a thousand is more than sufficient for a community to have their own self-hosted chat system.
Decades is far from infinite
You are not infinite either 😅
I host my own matrix instance.
I wouldn’t mind hosting my own lemmy instance either, but as it’s a public platform anyway I don’t have the same qualms about using an instance hosted by someone else. So I opted not to take on any more work on that.
Not everyone needs to self host, you might get away with knowing someone who does. And no, I wouldn’t accept a nextcloud account hosted by just anyone, but my siblings and parents happily utilize ones provided by me.
And back when teamspeak, mumble, ventrilo, minecraft servers, cs servers, etc. all had to be “self-hosted” there were plenty of service providers who would do all the technical work for the layman, in exchange for direct payment. Making all those services quite accessible to anyone.
That was so much better than how today we “pay” by getting datamined.
I agree with you here but I wouldn’t want to pay for a host for some FOSS project and I wouldn’t host that on my own IP either.
Why not? How do you expect to realize a fair and good internet, controlled by its users instead of corporations driven by motives far removed from what is in the interest of users, or even humanity as a species?
You still don’t have to, I’ll do it. But someone has to. Would you donate to your own instance?
Unless I’m misreading this, your argument seems to be that software freedom is irrelevant in the face of technical superiority or popularity. That’s exactly the opposite of “firm support” in my view.
I’ll offer a counterpoint to the “best tool for the job” thing: before git existed, Linux development relied on a proprietary VCS called Bitkeeper. Licenses for Bitkeeper were “graciously” donated for gratis by the Bitkeeper developer. Andrew Tridgell, who was not party to the Bitkeeper EULA, telneted to a Bitkeeper server and typed “help”. The Bitkeeper developer, in retaliation, revoked the Linux developers’ gratis license to use the proprietary “best tool for the job.” This was what forced Linus to develop git, which became the most widely used VCS in the free software world. (read: Thank You, Larry McVoy by Richard Stallman)
Proprietary tools can seem to be useful in the moment but developing a dependency on them, and encouraging their use, is dangerous. Discord might seem like “the best tool for the job” until it enshittifies, just like its predecessors did, and just like its successors inevitably will. We’ve seen it happen often enough.
True, but managing expectations is needed tho, mainly about exit strategy:
If a community needs to leave, the content on Discord must be considered “not important”, “not transferable” and “not archive worthy”.
If Discord changes freemium, limits users or otherwise applies enshittification just leave your stuff and start over.
It would be easier to leave if you started by using a platform that made that seamless. Freenode gets bought & communities say to point your bouncers/clients to Libera.chat or OFTC. If you were on XMPP on a decentralized account, your account stays, but now there’s a new MUC to join. With Discord, if Discord goes down, so does the client & the whole server… folks need to relearn a bunch of stuff & it’s not a clean break.
This is also inevitable as we are talking about a US-based, VC-funded service & we have the entire track record of these types of services declining. Why not start with something that’s more likely to not suck in 5 or 10 years even if it doesn’t have all the same features so long as you can still chat in realtime.
Agree, wholeheartedly and reasons I want to avoid Discord et al. I do communicate my expectations rather cynically in case a community is starting and does have a choice in the beginning.
Gonna add that while Discord is inaccessible if your hardware is crap, it’s the ONLY platform accessible to plural people
If your logic is that a piece of software is inferior to another because it is less popular and familiar than go back to reddit
Lies, according to the rest of your very own post.
Discord literally doesn’t allow me to google (or DDG, or searx, or…) for solutions related to your software. How is that the right tool to use?
Fallacy of popularity. If something is “”“inferior”“” simply because people have not been trained on them already, then by your definition Windows is superior to everything else. Remember: big corpo trains you to depend on them since childhood in schools, which all use Office.
Not with that attitude. That is, the one of a loser.
That would be true f people were literally doing that. But no, the stack of software that includes stuff like IRC, goode olde web forums, Stack Overflow-like webpages or friggin’ email has existed since the '80s and can be not by any reasonable metric be called “obscure” or “alternative” or “nobody’s heard of”.
lmao I remember getting schooled by a math teacher when I tried to use libreoffice calc instead of excel on an assignment back in highschool
detail: all the school computers ran linux. fuck whoever didn’t have a pc with windows at home
she brought her windows laptop and attached it to the projector and expected everyone to have the assignment files in a format excel could read
problem is, at least going 12 years back, not all calc functions and/or param names translate directly to excel ones
so when she opened the file, which I made sure was one excel could read, there was a bunch of gibberish on some cells
when I told her it worked as intended on libreoffice, she said something along the lines of: you don’t go to church using the same clothes that you use when going to a nightclub
anyway, at least the school was trying not to depend on windows
With due respect, you do not have the authority to dictate what it means for me to support free software. Nor anyone else.
When it comes to community-building and social networking, the popularity metric is absolutely an important consideration. If you are choosing where to start the official community for your software project, and you choose an obscure service, people will make unofficial communities in the more popular services, and you end up with all the supposed drawbacks anyway. Normal non-technical users who are looking to join a community won’t prefer an official community on a service they’ve never used before to an unofficial community on a popular service. That’s why people make unofficial user subreddits and community Discord servers. Those unofficial communities could and in many cases will outgrow the official community. This has happened many times before and will happen many times again. Then, new users, even if they see both, will see an unofficial community on, say, Reddit with many more users than the official one, and when this happens, developers either start participating in the unofficial community posting announcements and whatnot there, and if that happens, there becomes little reason to join the official community.