×
Let’s explore the best alternatives to Discord | TechCrunch

Let’s explore the best alternatives to Discord | TechCrunch

Social community platform Discord is preparing to require users to verify their age by the second half of 2026, and users are concerned about the privacy of uploading a government ID or face scan to the network. While users can still access most features without verification, many remain uneasy giving more information to a company that suffered a breach last year that exposed the IDs of around 70,000 users. 

For some users, this is motivation enough to seek out alternative platforms that prioritize security, privacy, or simply offer a different experience. Here’s a look at the most promising Discord alternatives, from open-source and secure options to voice-first platforms built for hardcore gamers. 

Stoat

Image Credits:Stoat

Stoat (formerly Revolt) stands out as the closest Discord alternative in both design and usability. As an open-source project, it gives users more control over their data and appeals to those who value privacy and transparency. Overall, the platform is fairly easy for Discord users to pick up, offering similar text and voice channels as well as community servers. 

However, Stoat is a relatively new platform (launched in 2021), and still faces growing pains. Recently, it experienced server capacity issues and the occasional lag during user surges. Feature support isn’t yet on par with Discord’s, and onboarding can be slow at times, especially when the platform’s popularity spikes. For those willing to trade a bit of stability for increased privacy, though, Stoat could be worth a try.

Element

Image Credits:Element

For users who prioritize privacy and control above all else, Element offers a compelling alternative. Built on the decentralized Matrix protocol, Element enables users to self-host servers, maintain end-to-end encryption, and federate with other Matrix-based services. This ensures that no single company controls your data. 

While the setup and interface require a bit more technical savvy than Discord’s, Element is a good choice for users who value secure, decentralized communication.

TeamSpeak

Image Credits:TeamSpeak

If your primary need is high-quality, low-latency voice chat, TeamSpeak is the best alternative to Discord. While it remains popular among competitive gamers for its superior audio and private server hosting, its text chat and media sharing are quite basic. It’s also missing built-in video calls as well as emojis and gifs. So if you don’t mind not having as many features, it’s great for voice-centric groups that don’t need all the bells and whistles.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Similar to Stoat, TeamSpeak has experienced a surge in new users, prompting the platform to expand its hosting capacity. In February, TeamSpeak introduced two new regions for community creation: “Frankfurt 3” and “Toronto 1.”

Mumble

Mumble is a free, open-source voice chat application. Like TeamSpeak, it provides high-quality, low-latency audio and allows users to host and customize their own servers. However, its interface is outdated and lacks some of the features found in Discord, making it more ideal for hardcore gamers focused on voice chat rather than community building through video calls, media sharing, or screen sharing.

Discourse

Image Credits:Discourse

Those who prefer long-form, organized discussions over rapid-fire chat may find Discourse more appealing. As an open-source forum platform, Discourse supports threaded discussions, making it ideal for educational groups, professional teams, and communities that value in-depth conversation. However, users looking for instant messaging, voice, and casual group chats may find it less familiar than Discord.

Slack, Microsoft Teams, Signal, or WhatsApp

Other notable mentions include Slack and Microsoft Teams, which serve well for professional and productivity-focused communication. Signal is also a top choice for those who want end-to-end encryption and privacy. Meanwhile, WhatsApp also offers free messaging and group voice calls, though it’s not designed for gaming or large communities.

What to know about age verification on Discord 

Discord recently announced that it will soon implement age verification measures aimed at creating a safer environment, particularly for its younger users. This initiative is designed to ensure users meet the necessary age requirements to access certain features and communities on the platform. Users may be required to verify their age through various methods, which could involve submitting an ID, completing a facial age estimation, or using a credit card. 

By default, all users will experience a “teen-appropriate” setting, and only those verified as adults will have the ability to modify certain settings or access age-restricted content. Adults will be required to verify their status to unblur sensitive content and to access channels and servers designated for an older audience. 

After a recent backlash, Discord postponed the official launch to the latter half of 2026, adding that 90% of users will not require age verification and can continue using the platform without changes, as many users do not engage with age-restricted content. The platform initially planned to roll out age verification in March. 

Source link
#Lets #explore #alternatives #Discord #TechCrunch

According to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech">Amazon security research reportedly led to the White House’s Anthropic Fable banAccording to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech

Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech">Amazon security research reportedly led to the White House’s Anthropic Fable ban

According to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech

Post Comment