upvote
That sounds more like a recipe for overreach than a method to escape the law, to be honest. Governments don't typically go "aw, shucks, you've caught us on a technicality" without getting the courts involved.

Clueless lawmakers will see this app called Element full of kids chatting without restrictions and tell it to add a filter. When the app says "we can't", the government says "sucks to be you, figure it out" and either hands out a fine or blocks the app.

There are distinctions between the community vibe Discord is going for (with things like forums and massive chat rooms with thousands of people) and Matrix (which has a few chatrooms but mostly contains small groups of people). No in-app purchases, hype generation, or kyhrt predatory designs, just the bare basics to get a functional chat app (and even less than that if you go for some clients).

I'd say being based in the UK will put matrix.org and Element users at risk, but with Matrix development being funded mostly by the people behind matrix.org that implies an impact to the larger decentralized network.

reply
It would take some clever crafting to outlaw Matrix clients without also outlawing web browsers and conventional email clients. Let's assume they did though. The best they can do is block it from app stores, which won't stop anyone but iOS users.

More likely, it just won't become popular enough for lawmakers to notice because the UX is a little rough, and people have very little patience for such things anymore.

reply
It's not really a method to escape the law, or a technicality - it's that people other than Matrix.org are operating chat services, and the law applies to those people, but those people are not Matrix.org.

This won't save Matrix.org if legislators throw stupid at it, of course, but Matrix.org has the opportunity (though maybe not the resources) to engage with UK legislators to ensure they feel respected and that honest efforts are being made to comply.

reply
> Governments don't typically go "aw, shucks, you've caught us on a technicality" without getting the courts involved.

That might happen here, but I don’t think that principle holds generally. If that were true, wouldn’t every component of the service provider chain be sued for people e.g. downloading pirated or illegal stuff? The government cracks down on e.g. torrent trackers and ISPs, but they haven’t seriously attacked torrent clients or the app stores/OSes that allow users to run those clients. Why not?

reply
It's just a reality that law is harder to enforce when you cannot target a given server and take out an entire service. Regardless of what you think of the law.

This is why to this day torrenting of copyrighted material is alive and well.

reply
Matrix is a protocol, not a service

I thought it was both and their hosted service is in the UK. Is it not? I know people can host their own but I have had very little success in getting people to host their own things. Most here at HN will not do anything that requires more than their cell phone. Who knows maybe Discords actions will incentivize more people to self host.

reply
There's more than just the big flagship server and hosting your own. There are lots of small public servers you can sign up for, similar to email.
reply
> had very little success in getting people to host their own things. Most here at HN will not do anything that requires more than their cell phone.

You're just talking to the wrong ones :-)

reply
You're just talking to the wrong ones :-)

I do hope you are right. Governments have more than enough low hanging fruit to go snatch up and then pat themselves on the back.

reply
Like all global finance goes through NYC, they will find a throat to choke if motivated.
reply
That's why the bittorrent protocol is in such dire straights /s

Bittorrent actually has fewer real uses than Matrix. The former is useful for Microsoft and others trying to roll out big patches, but the latter is used by NATO, the German Armed Forces, and the French government

reply
My understanding is that German users of BitTorrent are pursued and aggressively prosecuted for copyright infringement.
reply