Let's imagine I have like 2 or 3 reasons to be using discord today, and I'm trying to move them to something else in the next few weeks because I don't intend to give discord my ID.
-
What I think is *really* important in a discord replacement:
1. low friction invite/join/create flow for private or semi-private groups.
2. single login/identity used for multiple groupsAnd that's really all I need, personally. But orgs that make heavier use of discord also need:
3. enough control over roles and permissions to be able to moderate communication (within a group, not across groups) among people who often do not know each other
In my ideal world, your chat identity would be the same as your social network identity. Your identity documents (aka your AP Actor, ATP DID doc, etc) would include addressing information and signing keys for real time chat protocols like xmpp, and that would be that.
-
In my ideal world, your chat identity would be the same as your social network identity. Your identity documents (aka your AP Actor, ATP DID doc, etc) would include addressing information and signing keys for real time chat protocols like xmpp, and that would be that.
Believe me, I understand why doing this is not straightforward. But it's not impossible, either. The time to start really committing resources to our own communications infrastructure was 8 or 9 years ago. The second best time is now.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@verge/116041069446538092
Let's imagine I have like 2 or 3 reasons to be using discord today, and I'm trying to move them to something else in the next few weeks because I don't intend to give discord my ID.
The other comparable monolithic option appears to be Zulip, which is fine, as far as it goes. But are there good federated options? People are going to have to migrate to another platform, meaning they will have to bootstrap their identity and social connections all over again. It would be great if this was the last time they had to do that
(I'm aware of matrix, matrix is a bad option. I want good options)
@jenniferplusplus as others have said, Stoat seems promising. But it isn't federated so you'd just have to self host or be stuck with another monolith
-
In my ideal world, your chat identity would be the same as your social network identity. Your identity documents (aka your AP Actor, ATP DID doc, etc) would include addressing information and signing keys for real time chat protocols like xmpp, and that would be that.
@jenniferplusplus the scary thing, to me, about single identity is how that can be abused by an authoritarian regime... one of the main challenges with creating a technocracy is that there isnt much difference between technocracy and autocracy... it is just the difference related to whom is allowed to define the rules.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@jenniferplusplus the scary thing, to me, about single identity is how that can be abused by an authoritarian regime... one of the main challenges with creating a technocracy is that there isnt much difference between technocracy and autocracy... it is just the difference related to whom is allowed to define the rules.
@scottley Yes. But, nothing about what I proposed would make it required to use a single identity in every instance. It would merely make it possible to use that identity in more than one instance.
That also makes it more vital, which makes it all the more important to protect such an identity anchor from the whims of an administrator (including governments). That's where a lot of the difficulty comes in.
