cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/7363991

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.

  • @rar@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    381 year ago

    This almost sounds like a 5D chess move to promote using alternative instances instead of the main demo. I’m thinking of selfhosting one for my friends group.

    Requiring an acc is understandable but making it Meta/MS and not even something like openID really kills the vibe.

  • @HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    30
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just destroyed everything they built in 1 fell swoop. There’s absolutely no reason to use Jitsi at this point.

    Retracting comment. Jitsi is still great, you just need to avoid the official instance.

  • @CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 year ago

    That is a massive disappointment. Hopefully Element gets their video calls sorted. Why can I not just have privacy tools that I can use? Why are the good ones taken away?

    • garrett
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      Short answer is that a lot of privacy-focused tools get abused like hell and put these companies in an untenable position. It sounds like Jitsi had something fairly bad happening that would’ve put them in a regulatory pinch.

      • @CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But the companies chosen for login is a slap in the face of anyone who cares about privacy.

        If it is e2e encrypted, why would this change mitigate what they are concerned about?

        • garrett
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          “Slap in the face” is a bit dramatic when this doesn’t impact the truly private version of this software, the version you host on a system you control.

          I’m also not sure what end-to-end encryption has to do with this since preventing the sign up of an abusive user essentially addresses the issue. It’s probably not something they’d wanna do but I’d wager they were getting some subpoenas and/or warrants that they couldn’t provide much information for and LEOs were ratcheting up pressure. Unfortunately, the legal side of tech is more than “ha ha can’t do that, officer”.

        • @HughJanus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          Kinda? It sounds like their platform was being used for unethical activity. But it’s like, you had to have seen that coming from the beginning, right?

    • Detun3d
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I don’t remember Element using the Jitsi Team’s instance. Element.io had their own so this shouldn’t affect it’s Matrix users at all.

      • @CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Yes. Jitsi was one of the best for a while. Secure and just works. I think Element wasn’t e2e encrypted while debugging but I’m guessing is close to usable. I mentioned it more as a FOSS alternative.

  • @uis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    Jami? GNU Ring?

    Well, there is also Tox(p2p), Matrix(fed) and Mumble(isolated)

  • kingthrillgore
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    Earlier this year we saw an increase in the number of reports we received about some people using our service in ways that we cannot tolerate. To be more clear, this was not about some people merely saying things that others disliked.

    Let me translate this into a language we can understand: We got some mean letters about CSAM and are reactively responding to it