|
Top-level
 Sure, anybody can make logs of public channels, but there's a difference between "public" as in making a post about it and "public" as in reaching the front page of an established newspaper or recording conversations in a coffee shop. Or not warning people beforehand, as is the standard with e.g. IRC channels. It sucks and they just keep making it worse while dismissing concerns or just ignoring them: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-public-archive/issues/47 4 comments
I don't make call-out posts at all, but figuring out what this bot that joined out of nowhere that started doing things without our request - who operates it? is it malicious? do we want to keep it? - wasted at least 10 hours (and counting) of volunteers deliberating and debating in a community that I participate in. Why do the volunteer-run communities that trust matrix.org have to clean up the mess by matrix.org? Discord uses announcements when rolling out features. What about XMPP MUCs that bridge with Matrix? Well, they get archived as well...: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-public-archive/issues/47#issuecomment-1574978098 It's seriously a very neat product as a piece of software, it's very cool, but its rollout is just absolutely anti-community and user hostile, if not sometimes dangerous. For clarity, this can affect your channel if "Members only (since the point in time of selecting this option)" or "Anyone" is selected, as far as I know. A moderator* in the channel also has to publish an alias in the room directory of a server that federates with matrix.org to eventually join your room on demand (as soon as someone requests it) and publish the chat logs under that domain. |
Gregory's Server
It's definitely ban evasion if you tell an organization that you don't want the service that they forced you to use and they still do it anyways, the nuance of it just being a staging server that could have been hidden from the public (or at least used a robots.txt) is irrelevant.