Discord needs to find a way to block this..

I believe the proper method for that would be legal process.

If Discord can't identify whose doing it, then they can serve a lawsuit by public notice. They can allege any valid claim that would Entitle them to an injunction if true. Whatever person is running the service would then be required to come forward and File papers that include their Name and contact information in order to make a defense. If whoever is running the service DOES NOT Identify themself and file a response, then Discord get a default judgement. As soon as they have that judgement they can file for Injunctions to be sent to Domain registrars, Hosting Providers, etc,
  ordering them to disconnect all services and access to that customer, And turn over all records and property that belonged to them.

It's probably a Cybercriminal gang with a Botnet methinks.

That means their MO can potentially include running bots on stolen Discord accounts, Or malware on compromised Discord users' devices to mine all the servers those users happened to be a member of.

Note how they only accept cryptocurrency payments and their Mail hostname DNS infrastructure use Switzerland-registered names.

The website is fronted by a service named Cloudflare that is Infamous net-wide for signing up the most questionable of websites; providing Reverse proxy service for hosting anonymity, and giving free protection.

Problem is the NNTP protocol hosts are 1. Easily Identifiable hosts. If you use a NNTP client you can definitively see which physical server the thing is definitively hosted on; there's no system to keep the Client and the Server storing the data anonymous from one another, And.

2. NNTP hosts can know and see the content of what they are actually hosting, therefore.. An item can be identified to the NNTP host with an order that they remove / block a specific item or entire newsgroup. There's no mechanism giving the server operator plausible deniability from knowing the underlying contents and meaning of the raw data being stored and retrieved.

3. Not designed for exchanging arbitrary binary data -- this Makes it high-effort for the end user, and as a result,

4. The whole NNTP system is not used regularly for a whole lot of legitimate activity -- Hardly Anybody even knows NNTP exists despite it being a dominant protocol on the Internet before HTTP came about.

5. Because of the above The actual number of NNTP servers is small, blocking NNTP servers is Not seen as very disruptive, So they are very easy for state censors to target NNTP servers; NNTP servers are likely to be targeted and shutdown over objections to items -- the chance of people using NNTP servers daily is very low. It's not a great way of sequestering the control of data from ALL central authorities and actually creating meaningful low-friction access to the public.

It's not an unintended divorce - the person they accidentally divorced early DID have divorce proceedings.
The person who hired the firm wants a divorce, and the man she divorced is happy with the order. That is why they aren't allowed to reverse it.

Thus it was over to McFarlane, who agreed with the husband's lawyers that there was no authority for setting aside a decree absolute where there had been complete procedural regularity.

The law firm is hired solely by high net-worth individuals; generally to help them get as much out of the divorce as they can
in terms of money/property/etc.

The Wife's law firm screwed up by submitting her final divorce ticket early.

This gives up the chance to negotiate for a share of the marital property to the spouse they represent;
thus the husband is left with 100% of the money and property, since the Wife submits the order and did not go through the process to negotiate for any of it.

They cannot just back out of a final divorce order, So long as the husband objects, and why would he want to agree to cancel the order that leaves him with 100% of the assets?

Not exactly a great moment for the divorcing spouse or their attorneys.

Why would your friends that don't use ad blockers leave exactly

Because I tell them about a podcast I listened to that's not on Youtube - while you are checking out that podcast on a Podcast site you have a good chance of finding even more things to watch that are not Youtube. Or I tell them about a cool new movie on Netflix, or suggest we watch something together which is also not on Youtube, and they will have therefore left a variable percentage of that time.

As humans our time is scarce, and Nobody's natural state involves sitting on Youtube waiting for something cool.

If I give you some neat things to watch that is Not on Youtube, then your Youtube watch hours will naturally decline as you are checking out those things, instead of things that are on Youtube.

That's a DMCA nightmare.

Actually the DMCA has safe harbor available for system caches - 17 USC 512(b).

A distributed cache can be within the safe harbor.

Google ought to know about that one

17 USC 512(b)(1). See Parker v Google (ED Pa 2006) 422 F Supp 2d 492, 497, aff'd (3d Cir 2007) 242 Fed Appx 833, cert denied (2008) 552 US 1156 (defendant, Google, entitled to safe harbor for automatic caching of web pages for indexing purposes);

Field v Google, Inc. (D Nev 2006) 412 F Supp 2d 1106 ("cached" links to plaintiff's copyrighted works held to be fair use; defendant entitled to protection of system caching safe harbor).

and getting no ad-views and no paid revenue from you is the worst-case-scenario

That is not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is I leave Youtube and take with them at least a portion of All my friends (over time) who were not bothering with Ad Blockers anyways.

This means that while me leaving saves them a tiny bit of money on network resources; It actually causes a negative network effect across their whole userbase which reduces their total number of views from people who might have considered paying for Premium or who were not even thinking of the option of Ad blockers.

Your value to a social media site is Not the amount of paid revenue from you.

It's the amount of paid revenue from you plus your network value which includes the value of $$ that can be earned off data learned from you, and the value that can be earned from other people you cause to use the site.

For example, Let's say the average revenue from a youtuber is "X", and the average network value of a youtuber is "P".

If I block ads and never pay Youtube anything, But I upload a video to Youtube that 1000 people come to Youtube to watch who would not have watched on Youtube before, then Youtube has zero paid revenue from me, but then my network value is 1000XP that day; that is potentially 10s of dollars immediately, and tens of thousands of dollars over time.

Ahh, but most people don't upload videos.. Well that is Okay as well, because if I watch Youtube, then I will inevitably end up sharing video links with some of my friends who are Not on Youtube, and referring others to Youtube, then my network value would average (number of users)*(number of referrals)*X*P -- this also adds up to quite a lot over time.

On the other hand If I stop watching Youtube altogether, then my Network value becomes negative, Because It means I will be actively discouraging friends from watching Youtube by referring them to other sources. Me No longer using Youtube will cause my Network Value to the website to become negative, and if it becomes large enough in the negative direction, then it will certainly exceed the hosting costs.

It does NOT cost much to display a video to one person, AND most people will not run effective Ad Blockers anyway, so it can be very detrimental for the site to mess with the few who do.

I would suggest that some kind of update be made to these apps so that on successful download they'll "cache" the video payload, and add an option to push it up to some kind of server or network that can be retrieved from as an alternate to retrieval from Youtube.

I mean: If Youtube's going to directly attack the apps, then start working together to make the video data itself available without using their servers.

That's to get something like freenet actually working.

First of all; Centralization is not the only thing stopping replacement of Youtube. Hosting and distributing large video files is expensive -- the large companies pay a huge dollar figure not only to host those files, but also for network capacity to send those files. Your average home user internet connection has a capped upstream, and even if the internet is decentralized, you aren't able to decentralize hosting of large video files.

The other trouble is Freenet may actually be too decentralized.. These types of systems are suited towards distributing Static information only.

It's decentral to the point publishers can't even have server-side scripts; everything has to be static, and even getting updates to your static documents distributed is trouble, if I recall correctly. You couldn't create a website like Slashdot on top of the freenet if you wanted to.

A server emulator for the game is reported being worked on by people within that game's community.

So a fairly high chance they'll have something before long.

Right.. The chargeback period has long passed would be a claim for the courts.

Except in 2024 all these companies lock customers into binding arbitration, And Arbitrators will Not contemplate fairness to the consumer or principles of justice If it's not what the contract says, then the arbitrators are always going to end up finding in the game publisher's favor, so it is kind of a lost cause .

For free solutions there's Matrix, but you have to host it and it requires people to create an account on each instance

Those two drawbacks are significant, but Matrix is also Missing some of Discord's most important features for gamers such as Forum channels, Threads, Voice chat, Screen sharing/Game Streaming, Emoji, and Stickers.

I would say that Matrix is more of an "Upgrade" to IRC that only really handles only the real-time chat aspect, instead of a Discord alternative.

just to browse almost any channel now seems to require you to create a discord account

EH? What are you able to browse without an account? You always needed an account registered with Discord in order to Join or view anything inside a server; private or not. Only exception would be if the server itself uses a 3rd party custom app like WidgetBot to host a display of their server on a website.

Discord is absolute garbage. Pathetic limits on file uploads compared to telegram

So are you saying Telegram is the Discord replacement?

every server feels the need to create 100 channels

Well, yeah, because not everyone on a server is interested in every topic people in the community may want to discuss.

Everyone like Discord, but i'm starting to like them less and less.

The question then is what alternatives exist to Discord that are similar, however?

IRC's UI is not great and Lacks Presence, History, Search, Emoji's, and integrated Voice chat, for example.

Discord also has a huge bot/app ecosystem. that does a lot of cool community things you couldn't do on IRC, etc