I tried making an account once, technically my account was created but trying to log in only gets me a screen that requires I verify a phone number. I was never even able to attempt to join a server. I assume it's my browser's privacy settings and ad blocker but I'm not sure.

Discord has an account flag that triggers a mandatory phone number verification. It happens if you do things like send messages too quickly over the span of about a minute, or send multiple friend requests, or join too many servers, or start too many DMs, or indeed, join any server that is set to require phone number verification.

I am in dozens of servers and have not encountered this demand for a phone number. I have been in servers that required it for moderators as part of 2FA, and I just declined to moderate there. It had no effect on my use of any other server.

Just because something hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to other people

When other people say that something happens to them, why should I simply take them at their word when it contradicts the evidence actually available to me?

I would think that the appropriate response is to show more concrete evidence; in this case that could be the related policy, for example.

More to the point, the post I responded to says "It happens if...". I think that can reasonably be understood as logical implication. If it was meant to mean "it can happen if..." then I genuinely don't understand why or how I was supposed to come to that interpretation.

Especially with the bit about servers that require it. It read to me like the claim was that entering such a server would automatically flag your entire account. I know that not to be the case from my own experience.

If it doesn't rain one day, that's not evidence there exists no rain

That's about the level of evidence that your specific user account offers to you about whether phone verification is a thing their anti-spam algorithms can trigger...

The funny thing about evidence is that Discord even has a page stating exactly what LoganDark said...

https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/6181726888215-...

A simple Google search turns up results from years ago that are still valid today: https://old.reddit.com/r/discordapp/comments/ircyh1/locked_o...

> You'll be required to register a phone number to your Discord account in order to continue the use of it.

I didn't claim that it didn't happen to you, or that it never happens. You seemed to be implying that it will always happen, or commonly happen; my experience is proof that it doesn't always happen, and at least as strong evidence for it rarely happening as your experience is of it frequently happening.

>I didn't claim that it didn't happen to you, or that it never happens.

The following is worded in such a way that it very much reads that you're saying it doesn't happen...

>When other people say that something happens to them, why should I simply take them at their word when it contradicts the evidence actually available to me?

You've very clearly said that if something hasn't happened to you, you're not likely to believe someone when they tell you it's happened to them. Further...

>You seemed to be implying that it will always happen, or commonly happen...

... there was no implication. The comment you initially responded to clearly stated specific instances that will trigger the phone number requirement, the same instances that are very clearly stated by Discord[1] itself.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45526721

> The comment you initially responded to clearly stated specific instances that will trigger the phone number requirement

And I'm saying that I've personally been (as far as I can tell) in some of the situations described without encountering such requirement, therefore "will" is hyperbolic.

It especially doesn't make sense to me that there would be a flag for "joining too many servers" because they put a hard cap on that anyway. And indeed, the support article says that this triggers for joining too many servers in a short period of time.

It never happened to him, so it's never happened

Makes this huge data leak a real head scratcher

It has happened to me on two accounts. OP is also not the only other person I've seen who has dealt with it.

Bully for you that you haven't encountered it, but it's certainly a thing.

Anyone on HN should know the fickle nature of fraud detection, especially when the cost of getting it wrong is 0.

I refuse to use their “create a server” language. It is not a server by any definition of the word server.

You can set up a community on their servers.

I’m not sure why they chose to use misleading language, but it is misleading.

It’s wrong in terms of the technical implementation and right in terms of user experience.

Gamers are well familiar with different communities actually hosting servers and instances for games or voice chat pre discord. Discord offers the same experience but without physically being different servers. Keeping the name guides users in the same way OSs call it a recycling bin despite not actually being a bin.

I'm not sure it matters in this situation ...? Server/instance/VM/shard/... when used in this context is pure corporate naming BS. They'd have called it "setting up a new circle jerk" if they thought it would increase metrics

Fun fact: Discord called them guilds before realising that they could compete with paid services that set up actual (e.g. Mumble) servers for you by pretending this is equivalent and free

I also have trouble going along with the doublespeak. If a supermarket called their beer apple juice, I'd also not be offering my friends "apple juice", I'd call it what it is

Guild is innocuous enough and since the API docs still call their communities that, that can be a term to use among those in the know to have common and clear terminology

'Guilds in Discord represent an isolated collection of users and channels, and are often referred to as "servers" in the UI.' —https://discord.com/developers/docs/resources/guild

This seems like a distinction without a difference. If you used a paid service offering Mumble servers that used some custom software that allowed them to offer multiple ... "servers" on different ports/IP addresses from a single daemon, would you really care?

Focusing on the fact that it's not really a "server" because they aren't running as separate processes seems like utterly silly pedantry, and we probably don't even know if that's actually true regarding Discord or not.

The distinction matters. The cost (to my users) of switching from one Mumble server to another is the same, regardless of who hosts the server. The cost of switching from one "Discord server" to another is much lower than the cost of switching between Discord and any Discord clone, keeping people on Discord.

That's not some inherent feature of it being a server or not, that's a feature of Discord offering much more features than Mumble.

No, it's a feature of Discord putting all the "Discord servers" into one program, but not allowing third-party servers to be listed in the same program. A rival system offering exactly the same featureset as Discord is nonetheless not interoperable with Discord, whereas a Mumble rival could easily be interoperable with Mumble clients.

A server, to me, you have control over if that's the product name of what you rent. Discord servers are as much yours as Hacker News is yours

It's like pretending a taxi is the same as owning a vehicle, even if the taxi company was your neighbor and there's always someone available. The result is the same but the distinction couldn't be clearer. To me it's similarly misrepresentative to say you own a car when you live next to a big taxi station, as to say the SaaS web front-end you get on Discord is a rented server

That definition sounds a lot like it would exclude services renting Mumble servers. It's difficult to reconcile this with your previous comment.