meet.jit.si, the Jitsi Team’s instance, now requires a Google, Microsoft, or Facebook account for their online service
meet.jit.si, the Jitsi Team’s instance, now requires a Google, Microsoft, or Facebook account for their online service
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Mirotalk is a solid alternative
Jami? GNU Ring?
Well, there is also Tox(p2p), Matrix(fed) and Mumble(isolated)
You can use a community instance as pointed out by other authors. It’s a pity that they make this change, but still we should be grateful for this open source product that can be hosted by other providers.
Up to 4 ppl, you can use brave talk. For more, use https://meet.calyx.net/ or https://framatalk.org/
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.
Just destroyed everything they built in 1 fell swoop. There’s absolutely no reason to use Jitsi at this point.
They built a great software. The software is still there.
meet.jit.si is just a demo instance for the software, nothing more. You’re supposed to use the software yourself.Yes, I see that now, looking further into it. Framasoft has a very easy and intuitive instance at framatalk.org
Sure there is: Host your own.
Or just use another instance.
https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/community/community-instances/
Yeah not everyone has the hardware or the knowledge for that
If I had my druthers I’d start a business setting up and hosting these sorts of things because it’s way better than using a centralized service.
Unfortunately, my druthers fields lie barren.
The FSF jitsi patches still work, no?
deleted by creator
I didn’t realize how many community run servers were out there.
https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/community/community-instances/
I found this new community that is about finding new jitsi meet instances. Good place to find other instances so far.
Not even a Jitsi-only account?
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?
Because privacy is not a lucrative business. And the opposite is incredibly lucrative.
So they abandoned what built them up. They sold out?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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”.
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
