Keeping discussion local is the key, as someone could acquire Wheesper one day and anything could happen at that point - just as browser extensions change hands and things can head south fast.
What is it with website not following the system’s dark mode setting? Yes, there is a switch but the default choice should be “system,” not “dark.” (And it should not be a two-choice setting either.)
I think it would benefit from having a upvote type of feature to surface opinions/comments that people agree with. if you have many people with the same insight in your thread, there is no point in restating the same point over and over to show you agree
This is awesome! Feedback would be to increase the visual density of the posts / replies (taking from HN or Reddit) because right now there's a lot of space between each line.
Also, like many paste-bins, perhaps avoid asking for emails in sign-ups and be able to set expiry times on chats. Dead-man switch expire? Another idea would be to accept emails as a way to post into a discussion without viewing the site and enabling rss to keep track of new comments.
It'd be weird if someone could forward an email of a long discussion and have it format correctly for public web-viewing. Smartdox? I guess the LLMs would like slurping it all up. As long as names could be auto-redacted, it may end up being used - confidentiality agreements are the issue. Maybe as an email backup for important threads with the public thing as an option?
Once an email is received a reply is sent asking for micro-payment. EmailStash. SeedyBackup. DoxNation. DoxNow.
I'm all for free speech and privacy. But in the 30+ years I've been online, the actual trendline I've observed is that anonymous, uncensored forums evolve quickly into a vector for delivering speech that promotes hate, violence, anti-consumer agendas and anti-democratic politics. And if I had an alternative to propose, I would do it, but I don't. I'm not (at all!) saying all internet discourse should be in censored forums. I'm just saying that when people spread lies and make threats with no accountability, the people most likely to defend that behavior are the ones who don't, themselves, feel threatened and/or might even believe the lie. And that's before we get into how these things become platforms for bots.
It'd be interesting to see how that works in various languages, because there may be some selection bias. Most English-speaking countries have decent protections for all but the most abhorrent speech, and people who don't find their speech constrained may not bother with anonymous platforms. In non-democratic countries with more restrictions on political speech, maybe we'd find anonymous platforms full of pro-democracy dissidents.
Maybe something that would help these platforms is some kind of distributed or federated moderation, so you can avoid the icky stuff yourself even if it's still out there.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I hadn't considered that angle (English- vs. non-English-speaking countries, and democratic- vs. non-democratic countries).
> Maybe something that would help these platforms is some kind of distributed or federated moderation
In practice I think this would end up functioning as an extension of how the dialog functions: dogpile up/downvoting and bots.
Also no mention on whether this is end to end encrypted, can you comment on that?
https://wheesper.com/d/w8vGpMUenFR_rQCd2XJlNsKCWNUzmbCmkitmA...
>
> break the law, facilitate illegal activity, or violate another person's rights;
> threaten, harass, stalk, exploit, or seriously harm another person;
> share child sexual abuse material, intimate imagery without consent, or sexually exploit any person;
> publish another person's private or identifying information without a lawful basis;
> impersonate someone, commit fraud, deceive participants, or conduct phishing;
> infringe intellectual property, confidentiality, privacy, or other proprietary rights;
> distribute malware, harmful code, spam, or unsolicited bulk messages;
> probe, disrupt, overload, scrape, reverse engineer, or bypass access controls, rate limits, bot protections, or security measures, except where applicable law expressly permits security research; or
> help another person do any of the above.
---
...then what the heck do we need this service for?
(Obviously, this comment is meant as a joke.)
Also, like many paste-bins, perhaps avoid asking for emails in sign-ups and be able to set expiry times on chats. Dead-man switch expire? Another idea would be to accept emails as a way to post into a discussion without viewing the site and enabling rss to keep track of new comments.
It'd be weird if someone could forward an email of a long discussion and have it format correctly for public web-viewing. Smartdox? I guess the LLMs would like slurping it all up. As long as names could be auto-redacted, it may end up being used - confidentiality agreements are the issue. Maybe as an email backup for important threads with the public thing as an option?
Once an email is received a reply is sent asking for micro-payment. EmailStash. SeedyBackup. DoxNation. DoxNow.
Maybe something that would help these platforms is some kind of distributed or federated moderation, so you can avoid the icky stuff yourself even if it's still out there.
> Maybe something that would help these platforms is some kind of distributed or federated moderation
In practice I think this would end up functioning as an extension of how the dialog functions: dogpile up/downvoting and bots.
... anonymous?
uh.