Creator here - thanks for bringing this up. I was concerned about the message here as well. I'm not getting paid for that ad. I had a couple companies offer sponsorship of this list, but I decided to not pursue. In the end, 1Password simply offered this discount to visitors. For me this felt like the best thing I could do from a user experience point of view (switching to a password manager is hard for most people, and giving the extra nudge to do something really important for their online security might just do the trick) and from an ethical point of view (I'm not getting paid, and will continue adding competing password managers to the list).
How do lesser known all-in-one password managers like BitWarden compare to the more mainstream options? I specifically picked them when migrating from KeePass because I liked that they were open source and that I could create my server instance if I wanted.
And already on the live site. Impressive. I've already changed a few things on my Ubuntu laptop thanks to your checklist. I'm going to pass this around to friends and family.
I thought about buying privacycheckli.st at the same time and pointing it here, but ended up deciding that "security" feels like a broader umbrella and might reasonable capture privacy concerns of an average person.
Creator here - thanks for bringing this up. I was concerned about the message here as well. I'm not getting paid for that ad. I had a couple companies offer sponsorship of this list, but I decided to not pursue. In the end, 1Password simply offered this discount to visitors. For me this felt like the best thing I could do from a user experience point of view (switching to a password manager is hard for most people, and giving the extra nudge to do something really important for their online security might just do the trick) and from an ethical point of view (I'm not getting paid, and will continue adding competing password managers to the list).
Hey, co-founder here. We've really been focused on threaded, public-by-default, search-indexed conversations. We've found this to be super helpful for large, async communities so far, and the search-indexing is really great for organic discovery and preventing too many duplicate questions that someone might ask in a synchronous chat app. But we also support private communities, private channels, direct messages, public community/user profiles, and more. We've seen these things be really useful for content and community discovery.
I have a project within my corp where we need to collaborate with other companies on a shared project. We want to do this privately and right now run our own rocketchat stuff to do this. However we are open to hosted solutions.
I was unaware of this product until now, I figured I'd give it a spin to see what was available now and hope for some cool github integration in the future.
However the public-by-default stuff is a bummer. I know there are ways to make things private and perhaps its just me not spending enough time with the product but even if I make a private community it always has a _public_ general thread that I can't delete.
The public general thread is the default for any new thread or conversation so I can see that it will be easy to unintentionally create a thread that was intended to be private as public.
I understand why you want public-by-default, to increase engagement and community building but there are many businesses using Github and could use this tool if they were sure that they could keep stuff buttoned down.
So perhaps you guys could add a "business" or "private first" context that could be used for folks like me to ensure that while operating in that context I am operating as private-by-default.
Also, can you give any hints to what integrations might come?
Hey there - if you selected 'private' during the community creation flow, everything in that community will be private. However, there will still exist the concept of "public" and "private" channels, however those scopes are still constrained by the community settings. For example, a private community with a public general channel means everyone who has access to the community can see those conversations. But if you have a private channel in a private community, only a subset of authorized community members will be able to see those threads.
Ok, then this text in the "general" channel settings is very confusing:
Anyone on Spectrum can join this channel, post threads and messages, and will be able to see other members. If you want to create private channels, get in touch.
Also, it would be helpful if i could tell at a glance which communities I was in were private vs public. I can't even tell from the communities setting page if I selected private or not on creation (I did, but i'd still like to see that noted)
Thanks, looking forward to seeing how this gets integrated
*I'd love to see documents/media added to threads added to the repos (optionally perhaps)
OT: My hope here, is that the integration with Github will also, as a side effect allow orgs using MS Teams to bridge the public channels... Letting an org use the more powerful MS Teams client internally, but still integrating with Spectrum without the need for yet another client for public interactions.
