[littlestymaar]

Nobody is talking about IP here, it's about using standard and open protocols. HN and Nekoweb are both proprietary services, that's fine, but they run on HTTP and the only thing you need to interact with it is a web browser of some sort, whereas nekoweb's discord “server” relies on a third party (Discord) and uses a nonstandard closed protocol.

[jerbear4328]

Discord runs in the browser, same as HN. And the HTTP APIs they use aren't officially documented (except HN's read-only ones via Firebase and Algolia) (though both are easily reverse engineered and OSS frontends exist). There's not much difference.

[littlestymaar]

The big difference is that Discord is a third party here. Nekoweb, like HN, could implement their own first party forum, but instead rely on a centralized third party from which they cannot migrate. It's very far from the “passionate for the old web and personal websites” stance they are marketing in their pitch.

Also AFAIK you cannot be banned from HN for using the API, whereas Discord will ban you for any “misuse”. You also don't need to be logged-in to access HN, which is also indexable by search engines, whereas Discord isn't.

[anthk]

Discord it's a cage. HN can be accesed by JS-less browsers and the content will be indexable by any web search engine.

There's a huge difference.

[busk07]

By your reasoning, any backend that’s not accessible directly by the user is proprietary. HN would then also be proprietary, because it relies on a third party (HN) and uses a nonstandard closed protocol (this comment section). Any website that stores data and exposes it via their own UI is proprietary (I leave this vague on purpose, as it is up to interpretation). Discord can be run in the browser and is accessible via APIs. I think it’s as open as any other web app by a company that has a commercial interest.

Services like Discord have lowered the entry barrier for non-technical conversation and community-building online. It certainly seems to be polarizing. I’ve noticed a lot of my friends and colleagues either embrace it or despise it. I wouldn’t mind an open-source alternative to it, but with the extensive features that it offers that’s hard to achieve.

[littlestymaar]

> By your reasoning, any backend that’s not accessible directly by the user is proprietary

I've never said such thing. It doesn't matter if you can access things directly: proprietary means it's not FOSS, that's it.

> Discord can be run in the browser and is accessible via APIs. I think it’s as open as any other web app by a company that has a commercial interest

You need an account to browse Discord, which they can take away from you anytime. If you lose your account you lose your membership to any invite-only communities you belong to, which can be a big deal if you don't have other means to communicate with them to get invited back.

Also, Discord isn't indexable by search engines. So, no there's a big difference between Discord and most web forums.

Also, I don't have anything in particular against Discord (it's miles ahead of Slack in UX for instance, which I hate with a passion), but when people advertise themselves as fans of the old web, and link to their Discord, one can only smirk from the irony.

[iCarrot]

Kinda weird to start talking FOSS when the website itself never ever claimed to have anything to do with FOSS.

What does search engines indexability have to do with FOSS? There's no shortage of old school forums locked behind membership system, not indexable by any search engines.

Also Discord is an instant messaging software and not "web". It just happens to have a web frontend. It's OK to be nostalgic of the old web but not the old instant messaging softwares.