Ads are coming to Discord

[suzyne]

Despite being a loyal discord user and defender, I thought I would kindly provide some fuel for the haters.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/discord-starts-down-the-dangerous-road-of-ads-this-week/

[Pentium4User]

They need a business model because operating the services costs money. Selling data is maybe not enough.
The userbase exactly wants that. They have been told and they continued to use the service.

[suzyne]

It's not like discord irrationally never had a business model. Monthly "Nitro" subscriptions can be purchased by users to get extra features, so the assumption that theirs was a pure "let's sell user data" strategy is incorrect.

[athenian200]

I personally don't care that much about ads, but I am worried it's going to cause the "neckbeard-types" to make a big huge fuss over it, and make everyone switch platforms again...

If you don't know what I'm talking about, a good chunk of the gamers on Discord now used to be Skype users. But there were a few people who got fed up with it and started shouting at everyone to move over to Discord and putting a lot of pressure on everyone, refusing to get on Skype anymore, etc... and eventually the rest of us moved over mostly to follow the stubborn holdouts who had put their foot down and refused to tolerate Skype anymore, and eventually most gamers just stopped using it (though a lot of my non-gamer friends still do, it was a big blow because Skype used to be the platform for gamers). I still do use Skype because it works better for videoconferencing while Discord seems to be more like Ventrilo or IRC in some ways, which isn't always what I want. But most people won't touch it now, whereas they will go on Discord.

Discord took years to catch up with Skype to the extent I wanted, and now that it's finally there for the most part, it seems like they're starting to do stuff that will drive users away to some indie platform yet again... hopefully people stay this time. I'm really tired of hopping platforms just because people want to have these big freak-outs and expect me to care about the things they care about.

[Moonchild]

I'm really tired of hopping platforms just because people want to have these big freak-outs

Unrealistically expecting that a big platform can keep running at a deficit forever.
I'm pretty sure if everyone complaining would pay for Nitro, they would not need ads. But no, people want everything for free and not allow the service provider to have a healthy business income.
If Nitro would offer me something I actually wanted, I'd happily pay for it. But it's targeting a different type of user, so I don't.

[Massacre]

I personally don't care that much about ads, but I am worried it's going to cause the "neckbeard-types" to make a big huge fuss over it, and make everyone switch platforms again...

I hope they will do. As for me, there is no future for a platform built on Google Chrome technology. They are too dependent on it, and they are dropping support for Windows 7 because of it.

[suzyne]

As for me, there is no future for a platform built on Google Chrome technology. They are too dependent on it, and they are dropping support for Windows 7 because of it.

I find the experience of discord in a browser to be pretty good. There's little need to install yet another Chromium wrapper app, instead visit the URL in your Windows 7 compatible browser and you are all set.

[Pentium4User]

I personally don't care that much about ads, but I am worried it's going to cause the "neckbeard-types" to make a big huge fuss over it, and make everyone switch platforms again...

I hope they will do. As for me, there is no future for a platform built on Google Chrome technology. They are too dependent on it, and they are dropping support for Windows 7 because of it.

That operating system is simply out of support for more than 4 years. Using it is insecure because security-related bugs won't be fixed anymore.
The amount of users is also fortunately shrinking.

[Massacre]

I find the experience of discord in a browser to be pretty good. There's little need to install yet another Chromium wrapper app, instead visit the URL in your Windows 7 compatible browser and you are all set.

You need to provide WebRTC support in it and there were problems with hotkey-based voice activation, but as a text chat, it is usable.

[Massacre]

That operating system is simply out of support for more than 4 years. Using it is insecure because security-related bugs won't be fixed anymore.
The amount of users is also fortunately shrinking.

Insecurity because out of vendor support is a FUD. It can still be secured with third-party software that does not have vulnerabilities in itself. And I don't want to switch to Linux on desktop; there is a possibility to install Win10 LTSC, but it will too go out of vendor support in a year or so. Win11 is a not a viable alternative because of hardware lock-in (TPM, etc.)

[Pentium4User]

Insecurity because out of vendor support is a FUD. It can still be secured with third-party software that does not have vulnerabilities in itself.

[/quote]

This is wrong because if the bug is inside the OS (e.g. OS libraries, OS networking stack), you can't fix that with additional software.

[Massacre]

This is wrong because if the bug is inside the OS (e.g. OS libraries, OS networking stack), you can't fix that with additional software.

That's why I always use alternative software/libraries to access network, there is still a possibility of a vulnerability on kernel/driver level, but I haven't met it personally in 20+ years or so. At least not the one that could be exploited from network.

[suzyne]

Off-topic:

That operating system is simply out of support for more than 4 years. Using it is insecure because security-related bugs won't be fixed anymore.

I understand that OS security holes are real, and it is important to get them closed with an update, just in case. But in real life, how prevalent are there harmful consequences from continuing to use an unsupported OS?

This is something I am curious about... has anyone ever had a personal experience, or actually knows someone, or even only read online of a Windows XP or 7 user who has been compromised because of an unfixed security bug?

[athenian200]

Off-topic:
I understand that OS security holes are real, and it is important to get them closed with an update, just in case. But in real life, how prevalent are there harmful consequences from continuing to use an unsupported OS?

This is something I am curious about... has anyone ever had a personal experience, or actually knows someone, or even only read online of a Windows XP or 7 user who has been compromised because of an unfixed security bug?

Off-topic:
Well, I used Windows 98 back in the day for a while past its EOL, and I remember that got compromised without me having to download anything and it didn't matter which browser I used. Though that's a lot further in the past than Windows XP, admittedly.
However, I have definitely read online about Windows 7 and XP users getting compromised, but the thing is... in those communities that isn't taken seriously, because they just share with each other stories of people using modern operating systems also getting compromised, so they feel that there's not much of an additional risk in what they are doing, and tend to blame it on the user if something goes wrong. So there isn't really a denial that such systems could be compromised, but more that they feel the risk isn't greater than on a modern system and is mostly the user's own fault if it happens.

The other issue is that the user may not always know if their system is compromised, if for instance the malware author just wants to use it as part of a botnet or for mining. They might just notice their Internet gets slow occasionally or their computer gets slow occasionally, and blame it on a hardware problem or their ISP rather than realizing they're dealing with a compromised system. And probably even if they do guess something is wrong, they will just reinstall Windows thinking their installation needs to be refreshed because they've been using it too long, rather than realizing it isn't supposed to do that... that's the main problem with users like this. They tend to be low-information users who are deeply suspicious of Microsoft's visible changes, but don't really notice or care about subtle things that would tell them they have been compromised.

I personally have my own little conspiracy theory that the malware authors who keep botnets around are the primary ones doing what they can to extend the life of older versions of Windows past EOL, and spreading FUD about newer versions of Windows to take advantage of simple people who struggle with the learning curve and resent being asked to spend money, so that they can make sure they have an ample supply of easily exploitable machines. Doing this also deprives Microsoft of resources needed to fight them because people won't spend money on upgrades, and thereby also makes modern versions of Windows less secure. So it's a win-win for them if people don't upgrade... they can keep taking advantage of their old exploits for a longer period of time, and also starve the Windows division at Microsoft of some of the data and money needed to secure the newer versions of Windows and make the malware author's job even easier. I am also even wondering if Apple and Google are lending some tacit support to this stuff to make macOS and ChromeOS look better. But no else seems to see things the way I do, though...

[moonbat]

Off-topic:
One thing I've always wondered is, who today is creating or looking for new exploits on XP/7 or other long obsolete software? Those OSes were patched up until they went EOL. Given that malware is a numbers game and these OSes have fallen below the radar, what are the chances of success waiting for someone to fall for your XP malware versus trying an active exploit on 10 or 11?

[Pentium4User]

Off-topic:
One thing I've always wondered is, who today is creating or looking for new exploits on XP/7 or other long obsolete software? Those OSes were patched up until they went EOL. Given that malware is a numbers game and these OSes have fallen below the radar, what are the chances of success waiting for someone to fall for your XP malware versus trying an active exploit on 10 or 11?

Because new versions aren't completely reinvented and share a common codebase, many security holes exist in multiple windows versions, so an exploit may work on Windows 10 and 7. If Windows 10 is being fixed and 7 won't, it is an interesting target.

[suzyne]

Off-topic:

Well, I used Windows 98 back in the day for a while past its EOL, and I remember that got compromised without me having to download anything and it didn't matter which browser I used. Though that's a lot further in the past than Windows XP, admittedly.
However, I have definitely read online about Windows 7 and XP users getting compromised...

The other issue is that the user may not always know if their system is compromised...

I personally have my own little conspiracy theory that the malware authors who keep botnets around are the primary ones doing what they can to extend the life of older versions of Windows past EOL, and spreading FUD about newer versions of Windows to take advantage of simple people who struggle with the learning curve and resent being asked to spend money, so that they can make sure they have an ample supply of easily exploitable machines...

Some interesting ideas and experiences there, thanks.

I am asking, partially because I like Windows 10 a lot, and I don't want to contemplate putting Windows 11 on my Laptop 2, and anyway, Windows Update is not offering it as an automatic option.

So I am thinking to the future when Windows 10 is out of support! MX Linux has been suggested on these forums as an alternative, but that would be a big change, so the question of how long I can safely continue with an unsupported Windows really matters.

[athenian200]

Off-topic:
I am asking, partially because I like Windows 10 a lot, and I don't want to contemplate putting Windows 11 on my Laptop 2, and anyway, Windows Update is not offering it as an automatic option.

So I am thinking to the future when Windows 10 is out of support! MX Linux has been suggested on these forums as an alternative, but that would be a big change, so the question of how long I can safely continue with an unsupported Windows really matters.

Off-topic:
I sympathize, certainly. I have a few computers that can't be updated to Windows 11... while I'm not afraid of Windows 11 like some people are, I also want to keep Windows as long as possible on my perfectly good older hardware, despite having a Windows 11 laptop and finding I can get my schoolwork done on it (and even compile Pale Moon in a pinch). There are a few options... Microsoft is going to be selling ESUs to individuals for three years, so support won't end totally in 2025, there will be three more years of paid support, with the price going up each year. And I would say... based on my experience, you might be able to get away with an unsupported OS for about a year or two before stuff starts breaking, in terms of mainstream software compatibility. I didn't really get any malware that first year on Windows 98, myself... took a while for it to be compromised such that I couldn't work around it. But as far as security, who knows nowadays... hackers could be sitting on exploits waiting for the EOL and then making sure there are zero-day exploits that will never be patched. Then again, Microsoft has been known to issue extra updates when they pull things like that too soon after support is discontinued, especially when it's severe.

So I would say... my old rule of thumb is that when you have old hardware that won't run a newer version of Windows, then you can kinda get away with a third-party firewalls and antivirus for another year after support ends, but you don't want to go much beyond that first year, because you'll start seeing software incompatibility and exploits deep in the OS that you can't work around with common sense as easily. But remember that my old rule of thumb is from 2007, and I have no experience doing something similar in 2024. That is to say, I haven't been in a position where a newer Windows version required a hardware upgrade and I physically couldn't update for a very long time... Microsoft was really good about supporting older hardware after Vista, up until now.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

remember that my old rule of thumb is from 2007, and I have no experience doing something similar in 2024.

I'd say with how similar Windows versions have been since Windows 7, you can get away with a bit more time, but anything more than 3 years past EoL would be starting to push it. So you could potentially get ESU support then still be OK for 2-3 years after that ends.

[Echedelle]

I'm really tired of hopping platforms just because people want to have these big freak-outs

Unrealistically expecting that a big platform can keep running at a deficit forever.
I'm pretty sure if everyone complaining would pay for Nitro, they would not need ads. But no, people want everything for free and not allow the service provider to have a healthy business income.
If Nitro would offer me something I actually wanted, I'd happily pay for it. But it's targeting a different type of user, so I don't.

I think the model Beeper used being based on Matrix is something I consider very nice.