Technology

37735 readers

53 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

465

Jitsi, the open-source video conferencing platform, now requires a Google, Microsoft, or Facebook account for their online service (jitsi.org)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by esaru to c/technology

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While Jitsi is open-source, most people use the platform they provide, meet.jit.si, for immediate conference calls. They have now introduced a "Know Your Customer" policy and require at least one of the attendees to log in with a Facebook, Github (Microsoft), or Google account.

One option to avoid this is to self-host, but then you'll be identifiable via your domain and have to maintain a server.

As a true alternative to Jitsi, there's jami.net. It is a decentralized conference app, free open-source, and account creation is optional. It's available for all major platforms (Mac, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android), including on F-Droid.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tbf I'd not get angry if it was jihadist recruitment, child porn, human trafficking, etc. etc.

[–] knokelmaat 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But won't those criminals always find another way of communicating? If you're doing something illegal, it's worth it to you to go through some hoops to have safe and private communication. All this does is remove that option from less tech literate people.

[–] Banzai51@midwest.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But now the illegal content is not happening on their owned instance, taking them off the hook.

[–] koper@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Communication network providers in the EU generally aren't liable for illegal activity of their users.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

That doesn't make it a non-issue. Ignoring the obvious ethical issues, there are still serious costs to addressing conduct they're made aware of, both in terms of actual man hours and mental health of any employees, and the actual bandwidth of the abusive traffic.