[HidyBush]

Discord clients can't magically implement features that the Discord API doesn't have. The only thing they can do is personalize the experience locally, maybe by changing the interface or implementing more comfortable defaults and shortcuts. This is not a case of a Discord client offering Nitro (i.e. paid) features for free, to get the paid features you have to authenticate yourself through the API meaning Discord still gets the money and everyone's happy.

[tptacek]

Why should companies that build products with serverside components be required to let you build your own clients? What you're saying when you make this demand is that it should be unlawful to build closed systems (or: unlawful to build closed systems if there's a network API anywhere in them).

[HidyBush]

The moment you have a publicly facing API you are saying "these are the rules to talk to us". It doesn't matter what the client is, if it follows the rules then it should work.

A website is a publicly facing API and if two different browsers can talk the HTTP protocol and implement all the other APIs the website requires then you shouldn't be blocked from accessing the website through one of them

[tptacek]

You're not really answering my question. "One of the rules of this API is that you exclusively use this client" is an expressible rule. What gives you the right to dictate the terms that other people build by? I don't understand the principle here.

[Firmwarrior]

I'll explain why I want the right to dictate the terms by which software on my computer talks to software on other people's computers. It's because it's relatively easy to customize local software to work in ways I and other people want it to, and the only thing stopping us from doing so is arbitrary draconian laws and rules. This results in situations where you can't access a lot of straightforward websites and services unless you download an "app" that's actually just a wrapper around a web browser and a bunch of spyware, and it makes it impossible for people with various minor disabilities to use a lot of services comfortably.

The rule right now is "Any jerkoff can dictate what is and isn't allowed to run on my computer" and I would like to change that rule to "I'm in charge of what runs on my computer, you're in charge of what runs on your computer".

[cartesius13]

You are in charge of what runs on your computer, nobody is forcing you to use Discord.

There's no jerk dictating what is allowed to run on your computer, there's someone offering a piece of software that you can willingly install on your computer if you want.

If you don't want that, you're always free to not use the software or use workarounds to avoid the things you don't like.

I, for example, hate ads and use adblock always. But I don't think it's fair for me to go and say that everyone should forced to not put ads on their stuff.

I'm not a fan but I understand that I have no right to dictate what people do with their software

[spion]

This is not true for platforms. If a community decides they're going to use Discord, then you, the individual, are out of luck. You either use that or miss out on the community or convince the entire community not to use Discord.

[dancemethis]

There are a LOT of jerks coercing people into being used by Discord. Not only that, actively defending it.

FOMO on "community" is a considerable factor. The regular person is quite likely a social being. They will care and value being able to use the same platform.

It is a personal sacrifice to resist it while it remains. Even when a Free Software alternative becomes wide-reaching enough for an exodus, it'll be years too late.

[matheusmoreira]

> I, for example, hate ads and use adblock always.

> But I don't think it's fair for me to go and say that everyone should forced to not put ads on their stuff.

You can use ad blocking software because browsers are on our side. Our browsers support uBlock Origin whether webmasters like it or not and they don't have the power to force us to switch.

What companies like Discord and WhatsApp do is akin to contractually requiring us to use a specific browser that does their bidding on pain of banishment from the platform. That's how they get away with advertising, spamming, surveillance, DRM and countless other abuses: by forcing us to run their software on our computers if we want to use their service. If we could run our own clients, they would be powerless.

[systoll]

The terms of service are just Discord being transparent about what they’re doing.

The thing actually stopping you from using Discord with a third-party client is that Discord’s server software responds differently to the way the third-party clients talk to it.

You’re in charge of what runs on your computer, and they're in charge of what runs on theirs.

[dancemethis]

They are not transparent, since it's proprietary software.

The likelihood they sell/yield personal user data/metadata is too high to ignore.

[prvit]

> and I would like to change that rule to "I'm in charge of what runs on my computer, you're in charge of what runs on your computer".

Who is forcing you to install Discord?

[spion]

A study group, a programming community, any social group that you want to be a part of and they've decided to use Discord.

Don't like the Discord client or have trouble using it? Pay the price of not participating in dozens of communities you would like to participate in.

[psanford]

Indeed. Discord also works just fine in a browser where it doesn't have any privileged access to your system.

[citizenkeen]

While I understand your sentiment, no jerkoff is dictating what is and isn't allowed to run on your computer. You're always welcome to use something other than Discord.

[neoromantique]

At certain size companies should become platforms. Discord is just about there I feel.

[HidyBush]

How can a server know I'm using a different client if all the features are implemented? The condition that you may not use a third party client cannot be imposed by the API but is stipulated externally.

[matheusmoreira]

> Why should companies that build products with serverside components be required to let you build your own clients?

It's the only way to ensure we have the ability to adversarially interoperate with the offered service.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...

[drewcoo]

> Why should companies that build products with serverside components be required . . . ?

Because consumers should be able to make demands in return for adoption?

In a world less completely asymmetrically imbalanced toward capital, consumers would have a say in the products offered them, not merely the option to purchase (or not) rights to use technology as-is.

[canadaduane]

Network size on a spectrum from "me and my dog" to "society-wide monopoly" should be taken into account. (Not arguing Discord is at any particular point on that spectrum; only that it matters when considering policy decisions and how it burdens a company vs. benefits the public).

[YetAnotherNick]

You got the causation backwards. There are chat server with open API much before discord like IRC. The only reason discord or something else worked is because they got private funding and operates at loss for many years. And the only reason they got private funding is because they want to reap the benefits of monopoly on its users in future. So if there is some rule like you suggest, discord wouldn't even exist.

[franga2000]

> So if there is some rule like you suggest, discord wouldn't even exist.

Yes, exactly! Monopolies are bad and shouldn't exist, so companies that only exist to create them shouldn't exist either. Without Discord and other providers wishing to make a chat monopoly for themselves, development would be driven by need. That tends to create solutions that are much more open and less exploitative of its users.