zlacker

You can just have a conference call with the 5-10 speakers and use broadcasting software to stream it to the audience, why do they need to be in the conference?

>>Gasp0d+(OP)
Live Q&A is a nice feature.

>>Gasp0d+(OP)
For the Q&A section that comes at the end, usually.

>>Gasp0d+(OP)
Why setup a separate broadcast when listeners can just join the meeting room?

>>pclmul+21
Conference for the speakers + unlisted livestream on YouTube could handle that, using chat for Q&A.

>>dcow+D1
Yes, I know it's more comfortable that way, but if you have to decide between giving all your data from all your meetings to a random US company and a slight annoyance whenever you do conferences with more than 500(!) participants, the choice is pretty simple to me.

Giving all the data to zoom probably means also giving it to most US law enforcement agencies (should they request it), that would be a big no no for me.

>>dotnet+V1
Chat lags for 5-120 seconds depending on livestream settings, writing is much slower than speaking, does not always convey the question as well as sound, and is close to impossible to do on the go.

>>dotnet+V1
So, then... you're bound by youtube's TOS, you can't prevent people from getting in (usually via login), and Zoom makes it a nice experience instead of a hack.

Oh, and you can also do sub-rooms with Zoom, which has some applications in these types of meetings.

>>Gasp0d+G2
For the corporate or training use case, this is not a problem. If you are worried about US law agencies, you shouldn't be using any system that isn't rooted in face to face communication for anything sensitive. (And even that is suspect with as small as bugged devices are today.)

>>Gasp0d+G2
Not to mention that until very recently even MS Teams sent you to a different product when you wanted to stream to 500 people. Even if it's now integrated, it's still a different product inside (and e.g. you could for example open a new window when you were in a 500 people "meeting" at the time when you still could not do so for a regular meeting).

>>dcow+D1
Because then you have the option to use less specialized software (not Zoom).

>>ebiest+Z4
They don't actually suggest using YouTube. The point is just to illustrate that this is a very common and relatively simple concept. There are tons of tools able to accomplish this.

>>SAI_Pe+h1
You don’t need to be in the videocall to ask a question; you can do it via chat.

>>Gasp0d+(OP)
Zoom has a mode that basically does this for you, which I assume is how they support >500 users.

>>yeputo+r4
They allow substantially less than 5. Tho trying is indeed slower for most people.

>>Gasp0d+G2
You say "just more comfortable" but if you have two streams and one of them is on a channel you know to be unreliable (Jitsi) it's pretty guaranteed the unreliable stream is going to be down a significant percentage of the time. If you're a company with 500 people this isn't a comfort question, you're wasting probably hundreds of hours of your employees' time.

>>ebiest+s5
There is a huge difference between requesting data that has already been collected and requesting Zoom/Microsoft/Google to record future data. The latter probably requires some serious intent. And of course, if I would want to be entirely safe from US law enforcement espionage then I would need to not use computers but whose use case is that?

>>lukesc+ct1
I think we're not on the same page about Jitsi being unreliable. In fact, it has been more reliable for me than Zoom in the past. Maybe due to the fact that I'm running Linux, I don't know, I haven't tried either on Windows.

>>pclmul+21
In my experience there will be always some guy ranting for minutes so I learned to really appreciate town halls with a few speakers and taking questions written in the chat.