Two things:

1. Please make sure you support all languages (utf-8).

2. Some public forums want anonymous posts that they can check and allow manually but still need to know who it came from (newspapers in Sweden does this a lot). Usually requires entering an email adress every time and a checkbox "I preffer to be anonymous".

I'll need to cross check, but I think with the default settings, it's currently supported.

> 2. Some public forums want anonymous posts that they can check and allow manually but still need to know who it came from (newspapers in Sweden does this a lot). Usually requires entering an email adress every time and a checkbox "I prefer to be anonymous".

Good idea, I'll add support for anonymous posting with appropriate moderation policies to prevent spam/abuse.

Thanks for the feedback.

I guess that would fool most ad blockers, and users would have to blacklist the "comments.mysite.com" on an individual basis. Seems kind of shady to me. Have you considered this?

There's nothing wrong with using the CNAME if you're only serving comments off that domain.

Also, I'm pretty sure you can regex adblocking DNS entries, so you could block on comments.. pretty easily with minimal casualties. You'd have to intentionally randomize it to bypass adblockers... Which will probably get your domain listed as a badhost by most peers.

(Smarter adblockers would check for CNAMEs and IP blocks, but let's not ecalate the arms race for no reason.)

> it's just another Disqus.

The main difference is the privacy aspect since I don't track users or serve ads. Disqus' business model depends on collecting user data and monetizing it, unlike mine where I directly charge website owners to embed comments.

That's probably what Disqus would have said too if you asked them when they were in your phase. Privacy concerns aren't solved by promises, it's solved by infrastructural and technical decisions that make tracking impossible or/and simply not profitable.

Also, what's to prevent a provider from double-dipping? If you can sell the product plus your users data you can presumably generate even more income. For example, mobile phone carriers sell monthly plans to users and some sell users location and usage data (usually "anonymised") to advertisers.

I don't mean to imply that you are doing these things, or that you ever would, but without independent verification by a trusted third-party, all the users have to go on are your marketing claims. What's your plan for dealing with sceptical users?

* clear policies on how user data is handled

* explicit commitment to never sell user data to third parties

* transparency about any specific concerns users might have

* no dark patterns to trick users or website owners

* a track record of good decision making and staying true to the commitment to privacy

And for people who find me through forums (including HN) or via my blog, I think my privacy + no bullsh*t leanings are pretty clear.

Since I'm solo and bootstrapped, I don't know what options I have regarding independent verification of my claims, but if I get to a point where I can explore such options, I'm all for third party verification of my claims.

This may make quite a legal difference when the justice system gets eventually involved.

If history has shown us anything, it's that everyone has a price and if someone comes along with enough money you'll change your tune. No thanks.

AFAIK I agree that this is another disqus, third party hosted, no privacy expectation, vendor lock-in, etc. also very expensive.

It's another Disqus.