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.

  • Carlos Solís
    link
    fedilink
    42 years ago

    Remember the good old times where OpenID / OAuth were starting to become the norm, and you could log in with StatusNet? Well why can’t Jitsi do the same with my Mastodon account?

    • albinanigans
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      What did happen with OpenID, anyway? I remember it being big when Livejournal was a thing.

      • adora
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        the biggest problem, ironically, was how flexible it was.
        users were forgetting WHICH provider they signed up to a service with, causing a support nightmare and multiple accounts

        then there was the issue that all the big players didn’t accept external auth - so google, etc… require their own accounts.

  • Blóðbók
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    The benefit of jitsi was how easy it was to just go to a link and get a videocall going. No account or software needed. It’s no longer useful to me if I need to log in, because I don’t have facebook or google accounts and I don’t feel like fiddling around with 2FA bullshit to log in with github. I can’t even log in to github at all on my phone for some reason.

    • elgordio
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Whereby is pretty good. The host needs an account but all the participants can just visit a link, no account or application needed.

  • sado1
    link
    fedilink
    162 years ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      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.

      • Blóðbók
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          2 years 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.

  • adora
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    this is really good to know, thanks for sharing

  • NecoArcKbinAccount
    link
    fedilink
    82 years ago

    Honestly, fair enough. The fact that you can self-host is huge imo, which no one else provides and ensures complete control, unlike Zoom where they sell your information to AI companies.