1. 23
  1.  

  2. 7

    Sadly, Discord doesn’t seem to care. The general advice in response to “how do I defend against a large scale spam attack” is “just report them to us”,

    For some reason people go proprietary for something that has been open for decades and are surprised the experience is..proprietary.

    1. 7

      I’m kind of sad that irccloud didn’t pick up steam. It just builds a nice UI on top of the plain IRC protocol and adds persistence as a servic (without needing a shell etc). They had a nice product before slack became big - talk about lost opportunities.

      1. 1

        I think one problem is calling it “irccloud”. Makes it unattractive because people who know what IRC is have an thought in their head when they hear “irccloud” and people that don’t know what it is probably don’t know it’s a chat service. It’s also, unfortunately, very hard to get people excited over old technology even if it can be used (with slight adaptation) to solve the same problem. Like XML vs s-exprs.

        FWIW, I’m not against new chat services like Slack. I’m against the protocols not being open. I don’t want to use Slack’s shitty clients. Luckily Slack has an IRC gateway, but given how poorly the Thread functionality fits into it I can see them turning that off in the next few years as they try to support features that work less well in IRC. The REST interface is also pretty crappy and…why would I want to use REST for my chat interface??

        1. 1

          To my mind irccloud was the worst of both worlds. If you built your workflow around it then you were just as locked into a proprietary system as with slack/discord, but the UX wasn’t and never could be quite as nice since it was tied to IRC compatibility.

          1. 1

            If you built your workflow around it then you were just as locked into a proprietary system as with slack/discord

            But that’s not true since the underlying protocol (IRC) is still open to anyone. So the UX might change but if irccloud goes out of business, the underlying stuff stays the same. I don’t know if irccloud itself is a good idea, just that one is at least able to replace it if necessary.

            1. 1

              But that’s not true since the underlying protocol (IRC) is still open to anyone. So the UX might change but if irccloud goes out of business, the underlying stuff stays the same.

              But which is the bigger migration cost? I think it would be a lot easier to move from Discord to Slack/Hipchat/… (which offer much the same functionality) than to move from IRCCloud to conventional IRC (suddenly you have no history, so you either have to build your own or change your processes).

              1. 2

                There are other options to irccloud, like quassel with mobile integrations or znc. Since IRC is open there is room for (some form of) competition. Of course those option are client-side so you only have history for channels you’re in.

                If you switch between Discord and Slack, your history is lost too right? I guess if you only care about history up to a day or so back it’s not so bad.

                Given current options, I don’t think the IRC option is for everyone. I see it kind of like why I run FreeBSD: it’s objectively a worse experience than Linux depending on your hardware and if you have to run Docker or not but I do it because I believe in FreeBSD more than I believe in Linux. I believe in open communication protocols more than I believe in Slack so I’m willing to pay the convenience price. Unfortunately, I still do use Slack for the same reason I have the 6 other chat apps installed: friends.

      2. 6

        Here’s an idea: use IRC, where there’s no rate limited API and Discord, Inc. can’t tell you what to do

        1. 4

          Or the tad more modern Matrix.

          1. 3

            I am pretty sure that in 5 years people have moved away from discord to something else, while IRC is still going strong.

            Apart from mobile usage IRC pretty much has everything you would need from a group chat. (And mobile wasn’t a thing when IRC was invented anyway…)

            1. 3

              Apart from mobile usage IRC pretty much has everything you would need from a group chat. (And mobile wasn’t a thing when IRC was invented anyway…)

              Like… history?

              1. 2

                The multi-client experience is poor, all the history solutions are poor, embedded images and links aren’t supported (and the community is hostile to them) which in turn makes good integrations very difficult, authentication isn’t standardised and again the community is hostile to standardizing it. IRC is pretty bad and whenever there’s a proposal to make it better there’s too much “get off my lawn” to get anything done.

                1. 1

                  Check out weechat for android, I use it very regularly for mobile IRC.

              2. 2

                Hm. How about:

                • Create roles guest1 through guest5
                • Remove the “talk” permission from the everyone role.
                • Your bot automatically puts guest1 through guest5 on entrants depending on how long they’ve been in channel, how much people talk to them, how much people reply to them.
                • Depending on the abuse rate, your bot changes the permission map.

                Alternately, since the spambots are abusing multiple connections to avoid rate-limits too:

                • You register multiple bots.
                • Your bots talk to each other directly.
                • Your bots issue bans in parallel.