Technology

43041 readers

134 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 4 years ago

MODERATORS

remington@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

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

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by esaru@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

4 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.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] owiseedoubleyou@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

It's hypocritical to call your service "privacy friendly" and then require the use of a Google/Facebook/GitHub account to log in. I kinda understand the reason why they do this, but they could have at least allowed you to use a more private email provider.

[–] bmaxv@noc.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@esaru

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

Makes it a non issue.

It's free as in freedom not as in free beer and that's that.

Jitsi doesn't have to offer free service and they particularly don't have to provide anonymity.

The same is true for the fediverse, since the admins have info that could help identify users. That has it's uses too.

[–] esaru@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Jitsi remains free. As you can see, this isn't about money but rather about privacy, which has diminished compared to before.

The issue with centralized systems becomes more apparent: the provders are held accountable for their users' actions.

[–] ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat 0 points 2 years ago

Why is everyone up in arms about this? The abuse of their free service was rampant. This isn't a core project change, this is just a measure to keep a version of the project up for free without completely taking it down. They don't even have a way to monetize this. An alternative was to simply shut it down and only allow you to self host it.

I self host my Jitsi instance, but as a privacy nut, I don't see a problem with this. Absolute privacy cannot always coexist with free anonymous services. Don't blame Jitsi, blame the people who ruined it for everyone else.