I'm not very familiar with Discord, but I thought the same about Slack. Slack has been aggressive in the past sending C&D letters to those who threaten their walled garden. I'm not saying it'll definitely happen in this case and I wish all the best to the developers and users of Ripcord. I sympathize with their want for non-electron desktop clients. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if they received a terse and disapproving letter from Slack's legal team.

> Slack has been aggressive in the past sending C&D letters

Could you elaborate? Slack provides client tokens and they don't seem to forbid that in the way Discord does (in fact they explicitly provide client tokens via OAuth).

To be fair, the ones I specifically remember were various browser extensions and plug-ins that would modify the browser version of Slack's official client.

However, I could have sworn there were a few full-fledged clients that Slack didn't like. I feel like one of them was a terminal-based client.

It's pretty rough really, within Discord's native or webapp you have to pop open the devtools/network-tab and grab an auth token from a request header, heh

Works really well though. I've been lazy about addressing a mic-not-working issue on the linux client, and had been resorting to using the webapp when I wanna voice

This ends up working fine for me though re: voice

Low footprint is nice too

What makes you think this? Discord is extremely popular amongst many gamers.

And if they made a professional version of it (as is not linked to current one), they would murder slack and pretty much anyone in the way.

I use both, for different things, and I far prefer Slack.

What do you prefer? I can think of a single thing I like more on Slack, maybe two if I'm splitting hairs (it's a dev only thing) but I moved my entire company's internal chats to Discord (where our external chat already was) because I strongly felt the opposite!

They already have more users than Slack, so I think their response to that right now might be shrug

The fact that you can't easily reply to a message in discord kind of tells me the opposite.

What are you basing this assumption on?

Third-party Discord clients violate the TOS. The company considers them to be self-bots, which also violate the TOS.

That means the discord users would be in violation. The creator of the client doesn't have to abide by those terms as they are not consuming the discord service. Merely providing a tool to do so.

Also see my comment in a different thread. Not an identical scenario, but Blizzard won a court case they filed against company whose sole purpose was to make software to violate their EULA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar....

They are necessarily violating the tos to work on the tool - how else are they testing it?

You would need to prove that. And for all we know, he borrowed the account from a friend who didn't know he was using it to test the API.

To block them from their platform and press charges if they do not? The block doesn't even need to be casually connected to the API usage - if they say go away, and they choose not to, that's CFAA territory.

3rd party clients are fully legal in most countries regardless of what their TOS might say, they are not above laws.

When did anybody bring the question of law into it? Law has nothing to do with whether or not Discord will prevent you from using their services for breaching the terms of use of what is, after all, their own service.

This thread is talking about breaking the TOS, not actions from discord (unless you replied to the wrong comment), TOS violations are moot here since Discord is not above laws.

I am replying to the correct person, but your comment just now doesn't refute what I'm saying. I don't say that Discord is above the law, but that doesn't meant they don't have the ability to deny access to whomever they please when someone contravenes their TOS.

Yes, TOS are not legal documents. We all know that. That doesn't make Discord beholden to granting everybody the same access to their service. I don't know why people feel the need to bring the law into it; it was never relevant to start with, so making a point of it is unhelpful.

To add on to this, the only available api is the same for bots as it is for users, the only difference is that bots have less api access and are labeled as such.

It's against the terms to use the user api (although it will work until you get caught), I'm not sure if they explicitly ban 3rd party clients (they very well may) but this effectively does the same thing.

That's terrible. I find the interface absolutely awful.

And? What are selfbots?

They are bots that use the bot API but connect as a regular user rather than as a bot user. This gives them access to features they should not have, according to the terms of use of the API.

I see. Discords fault then. Why allow this? But I probably know the answer. They have an Electron interface and no real way of detecting this.

Both users and bots use the same API. All that's different is that Bots have 'Bot' in their auth headers. That and some endpoints are limited to just Bot accounts.

Bot on normal account detection is based on outlier usage statistics from regular accounts, like too many requests or something.

All Ripcord requests (to discord) actually have Ripcord in their User Agent header, discord can immediately detect it's usage, they have not banned anyone for using the software specifically, only for the same reason they have been banning Selfbots (Users ending up spamming the API)

racists are mad they're getting deplatformed and convinced it means the platforms will die