7 ms·

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

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 4y ago
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).
- canadaduane 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      > 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.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- HidyBush 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
    - HidyBush 4y ago
      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.
    - Firmwarrior 4y ago
      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".
      - systoll 4y ago
        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.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  > 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.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > 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-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...

tptacek 4y ago

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).

canadaduane 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    > 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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
HidyBush 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
  - HidyBush 4y ago
    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.
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    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".
    - systoll 4y ago
      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.
drewcoo 4y ago
> 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.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> 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-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...