There's a feature that they scan your messages for abusive content, so it's surely not encrypted as they can read every private message

"Do the advertise encryption?"

Do they need to? The point wasn't "they falsely advertise encryption" The point was "they do not respect privacy"

Their advertising is irrelevant.

No, that was not, in fact, the question I asked. I asked whether they were "particularly privacy averse." And, to me, it seems like they are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service, given that they don't claim to offer any more privacy than any other service.

In fact, the only real difference I see between Discord and an IRC server is that Discord forces you to create an account and associates your messages with it. But, so does Github, and nobody complains about needing a Github account to contribute to FOSS projects.

"it seems like they are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service, given that they don't claim to offer any more privacy than any other service." Pro tip, using sweeping words like "any" will almost always make you wrong.

Nearly every popular messaging service these days offers end-to-end encryption. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say they "are not any more privacy averse than any other messaging service"

When you're worse off, privacy-wise than a Facebook owned messenger, you're not doing too hot.

I found a good write up of popular and e2e messengers for you to check out. https://getstream.io/blog/most-secure-messaging-apps/

I'm not claiming Discord is the most privacy-focused messenger out there by any means. That's what you seem to be arguing. I'm arguing that they have no particular aversion to user privacy (i.e. they are not particularly "privacy averse"). Literally nothing you've said constitutes a counterargument against that.

Again, if you want to revise your claim to say that they're not particularly privacy-focused, then, sure, I agree with that. But, to argue that they're privacy averse (meaning they hate user privacy and don't want anybody to have it), I don't see it, and it's not been proven here.

Pro tip: try arguing the point you're actually trying to make.

Scanning user content for hate speech demonstrates feature that could not be performed with e2e.

So one of their advertised selling points is privacy violating. Also they don't have privacy features that many of their competitors do.

Those two data points seem to show privacy aversion to me.

> nobody complains about needing a Github account to contribute to FOSS projects.

Of course people do, that's why there are other platforms and self-hosted solutions. Github is antithetical to the idea of free open source, especially now that it's been "acquired" by Microsoft.

"and nobody complains about needing a Github account to contribute to FOSS projects." Did you really just say that on hacker news? I literally read somebody complaining about that THIS MORNING.

I'll leave the googling to you my friend.

Do they advertise encryption?