Hacker News Reader

Comment by jetpackjoe | Hacker News Reader

sounds like they are more interested in keeping bots out than verifying identity

It's also not required by discord. Discord doesn't even require that you have an account. They leave it up to "server" admins. You can pick options from allowing guests, allowing only accounts, and requiring only phone number verified accounts.

Quite possibly, but they should still have an alternative other than "impersonate someone else".

Why not? It still limits bot creation (same number can only be used every 6 months). They don't actually want to know if the number belongs to you. Not much different than using a burner number.

Not everyone has a friend with a phone that doesn't use discord that they can use.

> Not everyone has a friend with a phone that doesn't use discord that they can use.

I believe Discord can afford to ignore those 3 people. Not saying it's convenient for the user, but it's not enough of an issue to encourage Discord to find a solution.

Any alternative would have to be inconvenient by design in order to work though, that's why phone numbers are used in the first place.

An effective verification system usually involves money at the root; verification in the style of phone verification works using proof of ownership of a limited resource, and most limited resources cost money (phone numbers, IPv4 addresses, etc).

In the real world this is analogous to charging money for access to an event purely in order to ensure it's not overrun with attendees,improving the experience for people who care enough to pay to get in. There are similar downsides to this; people who don't have money are left out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com