this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
453 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37800 readers
256 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
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
453
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@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
106 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
[–] Smoke@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But why a Google/FB/MS account? Why isn't an email account from an established provider enough, why centralise to three megacorps?

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because these three provide federated login most email providers do not.

[–] Smoke@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't think I'd unironically hear "This is an advantage because now one company controls all your logins" as a reply to privacy concerns.

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I didn’t say that. Security and privacy are nearly opposites. This is a security decision.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's plenty of disposable email services out there.

[–] Smoke@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

And they're added to spam lists all the time. All you need do is draw up a list of the twenty most popular, because frankly Gmail and outlook already cover so many while leaving room for privacy-friendly providers.