zlacker

>>exists+(OP)
It feels to me like Discord is speed-running the developer relations playbook that we've seen happen over a longer timeframe with large platforms like Apple and Google. This is the second high profile incident like this in recent weeks IIRC.

What's even stranger to me is that Discord was putting on a full-court press to get developers onto their platform over the last twelve months. This kind of response is certainly not going to help make devs feel all warm and fuzzy about continuing to build on Discord.

>>pnw+b6
Discord has a monopoly on access to its users, and so does not need to concern themselves with making it attractive to build there: the users are the draw, not the developer-friendliness of the platform. BotGhost should seek anti-monopoly enforcement; having EU users file the appropriate EU claims to appeal for Discord to be subjected to the DMA would be far more a threat to Discord’s monopoly than user support tickets are likely to persuade them.

>>altair+97
Wait, doesn't every company have a monopoly on access to its users? Are we all monopolies?

>>brooks+Tb
No? LinkedIn lost a lawsuit about prohibiting third parties tools from accessing its site, Matrix has strong interop, Elite Dangerous offers OAuth API for sign-in and player data download, and so on. There are others but that’s sixty seconds worth of thinking about it.

Mastodon metastasized the user store but each site is still a tiny centralized user store. That’s how user stores work. Doesn’t mean they’re automatically monopolistic.

Discord’s taking the Reddit-Apollo approach to forcing them offline — half-assed conversations for months followed by an abrupt fuck-you moment with little recourse — which given Discord’s free of charge growth mechanism, means that — just like Reddit — they’re likely going to shutdown anything by that’s providing a valuable service to a significant fraction of their users, either to Sherlock and charge money for it, or simply to terminate what they view as an obstruction.