zlacker

[return to "Zoom terms now allow training AI on user content with no opt out"]
1. abeced+1c[view] [source] 2023-08-06 13:51:08
>>isodev+(OP)
Why not switch? I've had good experiences with competitors. I don't know if they're as nice for mass meetings instead of one-to-one or small groups, but at least for the chats I've had, there's never been any reason to go to Zoom.

(I care more about spyware, privacy, and user sovereignty than AI training.)

◧◩
2. lucb1e+cf[view] [source] 2023-08-06 14:08:21
>>abeced+1c
> I've had good experiences with competitors

That's flipped for me: I've had good experiences with zoom on occasion.

The only time we use Zoom is with US customers, so a handful of times per year I'd estimate. Before covid, I only ever heard of Zoom in the context of laughably bad vulnerabilities; then during covid, suddenly it was a new verb used online to mean video calls. In a world where there are many established players (until 2019-12-31, I had already used: skype/lync, jitsi, discord, signal, whatsapp, wire, telegram, hangouts, webex, jami/ring, and gotomeeting) are already established players, why in the world would anyone ever choose to go with specifically the company that we all laughed at? I don't get it, and it seems most of our customers (mostly european) either

◧◩◪
3. hot_gr+qO[view] [source] 2023-08-06 17:17:52
>>lucb1e+cf
Zoom is the only thing that's worked reliably in conferences for me. Some of those apps work for small calls but aren't made for work meetings.

Our university had premium GSuite accounts for every student beforehand and STILL moved all its classes onto Zoom in 2020, because Meet/Hangouts was (and still is) far behind. Aside from lacking some of Zoom's important features and always having random issues with joining meetings, it totally hogs your CPU to the point of it actually impacting meetings, probably cause it uses VP9 which doesn't have hardware accel on most machines.

[go to top]