Technology

19 readers

2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 1 year ago

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

submitted 1 year ago by readbeanicecream@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While Jitsi is open-source, most people use the platform they provide, meet.jit.si [http://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. If you prefer not to self-host Jitsi and be identifiable via your domain, there’s jami.net [http://jami.net] as a replacement for Jitsi. It is a decentralized conference app that requires you to install an app. However, it’s 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

[–] sado1@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looks like they have valid reasons for doing this - also, remember: they still allow selfhosting. It's less about what they want to do, and more about 'people are shit, as usual, and this is why we can't have nice things'.

[–] On@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looks like they have valid reasons for doing this

Yea, the company does not want to be an accessory for crime or illegal activity. That's to be expected if they want to keep their business running. But that won't stop people from raging and claiming the project is now going to die.

[–] sudoreboot@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It may be reasonable for them, but for the people using it this kind of sucks. I'm one of the latter so as far as I'm concerned, this is a bad thing.

[–] 1984@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you rely on a single service this much you should either pay for it or selfhost.

Edit: What I wrote might sound aggressive but I don't mean it in a bad way. I understand your concern, just wanted to point out that one should be ready for free (or any for that matter) services completely changing direction, conditions, or getting decommissioned.