RE: https://mastodon.social/@verge/116041069446538092

Two things:
1. We are creating a two-tiered internet that will see people willing to give up their IDs having one experience while those who can’t, won’t, or don’t have them missing out on those experiences or being outright excluded from whole areas of the web

2. Why you would be willing to give up your ID to web services that have such poor security in a time when identity is being weaponized by state actors is beyond me

@Ashedryden teamspeak is great for voice, but someone NEEDS to make a better alternative for chatting. i haven't found a platform that works nearly as well as discord, and it sucks.

@mochabeau I don't think the problem is anyone making a better software to chat, by which I assume text based communication.

The problem is that no one is pushing hard for standardisation of one, which leaves certain companies' marketing departments doing it for us.

There were also times when locally run IRC server was used for chatting, the less privacy-oriented using public ones with invite-only channels in the more innocent times. Every device had a client for it.

@mochabeau @Ashedryden Agreed, as to the need for a better alternative, however the "QOS rules" conundrum is very difficult to solve:

https://autistics.life/@d1/116024756035274849

Owl Eyes (@[email protected])

@[email protected] No matter what alternative video conferencing solution you pick, alas, it will live and die by how well the network routers that you traverse, treat your traffic fairly - governed by the invisible, so-called "QOS rules". "QOS" is short for "Quality Of Service", and is a technical term that Professional Network Administrators know. *Governments who don't favor "network neutrality" will almost certainly have these QOS rules skewed to the favor of the tech bros, who can afford to hire lobbyists - unlike people like you.* Unfavorable QOS rules will silently tackle down your praiseworthy efforts and unfortunately make you look bad, because you picked a solution which ultimately "didn't work" *through no fault of your own*. Whomever tries alternatives like #Jitsi, #XMPP, etc: you'll likely get silently tripped up on/mired by QOS rules when talking to *some* of your contacts. Even though I don't praise or advocate the Zooms of the world - that's where you'll likely be limping back to, unfortunately. Having said all this, I'd suggest giving #Signal video chats a cautious try. It might work for *smallish* numbers of people having group video chats. #infosec

Autistics Life Community
@d1 @Ashedryden is that an issue for chat, though? i got voice calls down great, its the roles and level of categorization over messages is what i miss often
@mochabeau @Ashedryden well, maybe #Zulip? Or #DeltaChat, if you really want end-to-end encryption of group chats (but no control of roles)? #XMPP also has good group delegation, but the #OMEMO encryption can have less reliable delivery in groups, with various members disappearing for spells of time.
@d1 @Ashedryden the main issue is it must have native apps for mobile, and i need to be able to have roles control channel access, an extensible api for rebuilding the different bots that i use in my discord server, and screensharing. i have tried all those options, and i just haven't found one that meets all the things i need. i would really like to use a FOSS solution, but i feel like ive tried everything.
@mochabeau @Ashedryden as to teamspeak, I would personally try to find something #OpenSource