> it could even have for-profit companies participating
Why would they?
edit: "Old school people" don't "miss" convenience, they would love convenience. Instead they have standards and platforms that are sabotaged or abandoned when convenient by companied building lock-in. What we get was built by people in their spare time, or chiseled out of academic funding, and though it often sucks we should be thankful for it.
I think the chance that anything on Discord will exist in 10 years is probably about 2%. If Discord exists (25%?), they'll have blanket deleted old data multiple times by then. Not that it matters much, because finding anything old on Discord is impossible anyway.
If tech heads valued convenience enough we would see some solutions in the space. Instead they spend their free spare time on a million other things - and that is okay. But they really shouldn't be surprised when non tech people use Discord over IRC, or even when young techies do to work on other things they find more interesting.
I don't understand this. Older protocols don't keep any state. Many people were quite upset when old Usenet archives came online. IRC, XMPP, by default, servers don't keep any state.
So why is that Discord would be required to keep state?
And then the freenode story shows, even if you effectively lock up all meta data. People still think IRC is great and move to the next network.
Why would they?
edit: "Old school people" don't "miss" convenience, they would love convenience. Instead they have standards and platforms that are sabotaged or abandoned when convenient by companied building lock-in. What we get was built by people in their spare time, or chiseled out of academic funding, and though it often sucks we should be thankful for it.
I think the chance that anything on Discord will exist in 10 years is probably about 2%. If Discord exists (25%?), they'll have blanket deleted old data multiple times by then. Not that it matters much, because finding anything old on Discord is impossible anyway.