Skip to content
Fair Software logoFair Software logo

Discord

A decade-old chat platform with an official Linux client and full data export, but text messages aren't end-to-end encrypted and hashed ad-matching still shares behavioral data.

About the assessment

In 2024, Discord introduced the DAVE protocol, which was audited by Trail of Bits. This update added end-to-end encryption for voice and video calls, DMs, and Go Live streams, but text messages are still protected only by standard encryption in transit and at rest. The client is closed source, so the DAVE audit is the only independent security review available. Discord does not sell user data directly, but its Custom Audience tool allows advertisers to match hashed customer lists with accounts, and Quest partners get access to engagement data. This means actual behavioral data is shared, not just anonymized analytics. In 2022, France's CNIL fined Discord 800,000 euros for issues with data retention and passwords. The company is still privately owned and VC-funded, with a valuation of about $15 billion in 2021 and around $8.5 billion in recent secondary markets, as it prepares for a US IPO.

Strengths
  • Official Linux client, so open-platform support
  • Full JSON data export via built-in privacy tool
  • DAVE E2EE for voice/video, audited by Trail of Bits
  • Documented WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility commitment
  • No Big Tech owner: independent, VC-funded company
  • Fully functional free tier for voice, video, text
  • Localized Nitro pricing across 17+ countries
  • 10+ years of continuous, highly active development
Weaknesses
  • Text messages and DMs are not end-to-end encrypted
  • Closed source with no full-platform security audit
  • Hashed ad-matching shares behavioral data with ads
  • €800K CNIL fine (2022) for GDPR retention gaps
  • US jurisdiction exposes data to CLOUD Act access
  • No self-hosting: fully dependent on Discord servers
  • Requires an internet connection; no offline mode
  • Cancellation flow uses retention prompts, gray button
Fair Score
46Acceptable
We evaluated 0.0.406 (MacOS) on Aug 2026
using Fair Score 1.0 | See disclaimer
By section
Privacy & Data
22.7%
Openness & Transparency
31.3%
Pricing Model
47.1%
Ownership & Portability
55%
Independence & Ethics
46.7%
Longevity & Community
100%
See detailed evaluation ↓
LicenseProprietary
PlatformsWeb, iOS, Android, Windows, MacOS, Linux
Launch2015
DeveloperDiscord Inc.(USA)
DiscordGo to app

Fair Score

Click on the headers to expand/collapse
1
Privacy & Data
Where user data lives, how it is protected, and whether it is used to train AI models.
22.7%
1.1
Where is user data stored?
User's own device by default; data synchronization is optional and controlled by the user
6
EU/EEA, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway
5
Other democratic countries with strong data protection laws
4
USA, China, countries with weak/uncertain data protection, or unknown location
0
//
1.2
Is end-to-end encryption available for user content?
Yes, full end-to-end encryption for user content by default or as an option
6
Encryption at rest and in transit only (no E2EE)
3
No meaningful encryption
0
//
1.3
Does the company sell or share user data with third parties?
No, never (except for strictly necessary processors under data-processing agreements)
6
Only anonymized or aggregated data for analytics or research
3
Yes, personal or behavioral data is shared or sold for advertising, profiling, or similar purposes
0
//
1.4
Does the product train AI models directly on user data (including prompts, files, metadata)?
No, never; or only with explicit, granular opt-in, off by default, and clearly explained
4
Yes, but there is a clear, easy opt-out that does not degrade the core service
2
Yes, by default, with no meaningful opt-out (or only buried/obscure settings)
0
//
Section score: 5/22
2
Openness & Transparency
License, auditability, open governance, and independent security assurance.
31.3%
2.1
What is the source code license?
OSI-approved open-source license for the core product
10
Open core (core open source, key features proprietary)
8
Source-available (can be inspected, but the license is not truly open)
4
Closed source (no public access to source)
0
//
2.2
Has the software been independently security-audited or certified?
Yes, a recent independent audit or relevant certification (within the last 3 years) with at least a public summary
5
Yes, but the most recent audit or certification is older than 3 years
2
No known independent audits or certifications
0
//
2.3
For open-source projects, is the governance model documented and open to community participation?
Yes, governance is documented (e.g., maintainers and decision process), with contribution guidelines and a code of conduct
1
No, or not applicable (closed-source or no documented governance)
0
//
Section score: 5/16
3
Pricing Model
How users pay for the product, whether pricing relies on exploiting user data, and how fair and transparent prices are across regions.
47.1%
3.1
What is the primary pricing structure?
Free forever: no purchase, subscription, or data monetization of any kind
6
Lifetime license / one-time purchase (no forced ongoing subscription for core use)
5
Annual subscription (fair, predictable)
4
Monthly subscription
2
"Free" but monetizes user data (ads, profiling, data sales)
0
//
3.2
Is there a genuinely functional free tier (without monetizing user data)?
Yes, a fully functional free tier that does not monetize user data
4
Yes, but a limited free tier
2
No meaningful free tier
0
//
3.3
Is pricing transparent with no dark patterns?
Fully transparent pricing, clear plans, no manipulation
4
Minor issues or slightly confusing elements, but no clear manipulation
2
Dark patterns present (e.g., tricking users into higher tiers, hidden charges, obstruction when canceling)
0
//
3.4
Does the product use fair regional pricing that reflects local purchasing power without exploiting any region?
Clear, documented regional pricing based on local purchasing power
3
Some regional adjustments, but not clearly documented
2
Flat or opaque pricing with no fair regional adjustments
0
//
Section score: 8/17
4
Ownership & Portability
User control over data and vendor lock-in, including export, self-hosting, offline use, cross-platform availability, and accessibility.
55%
4.1
Can users export ALL their data in an open format?
Yes, full export in open formats (JSON/CSV/XML, standard open formats)
6
Yes, but only in a proprietary format (requires the vendor's tools)
4
Partial export only (not all data, or heavily limited)
2
No meaningful export
0
//
4.2
Is self-hosting available?
Fully local: runs entirely on the user's device, no server or hosting required
6
Yes, a full self-hosting option for the entire product (or a feature-complete edition)
5
Partial self-hosting (some features require the vendor's cloud)
4
No self-hosting option
0
//
4.3
Does the software work offline?
Yes, fully offline for core features
3
Yes, with sync (works offline and syncs when online)
1
Requires an internet connection for core functionality
0
//
4.4
Is the app available on multiple operating systems, including at least one non-proprietary/open platform?
Available on multiple platforms, including at least one open or non-proprietary platform (e.g., Linux, *BSD, F-Droid)
3
Available on more than one platform, but only within closed ecosystems or with significantly reduced functionality outside the main platform
1
Available on a single proprietary platform only, with no public plans or APIs enabling broader access
0
//
4.5
Does the product demonstrate basic accessibility support (screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, captions, etc.)?
Clear, documented accessibility support (policy or page) and evidence of basic WCAG-style features
2
Some accessibility features are present but undocumented or clearly incomplete
1
No visible accessibility features and no public commitment
0
//
Section score: 11/20
5
Independence & Ethics
Ownership, independence from Big Tech, stability over time, and whether the company shows responsible behavior in ethics, advertising, and environmental impact.
46.7%
5.1
What is the company / project structure?
Non-profit, cooperative, or bootstrapped indie project (no external investors)
6
Small private company (no Big Tech parent, no large VC control)
4
VC-funded company
2
Owned or controlled by Big Tech (a large tech conglomerate with a surveillance-capitalism model)
0
//
5.2
Has ownership changed significantly in the last 3 years?
No ownership change
4
Minor change (e.g. small investor, internal restructuring)
3
Acquired by private company (non-Big-Tech)
1
Acquired by Big Tech
0
//
5.3
Does the company publish clear, public policies on responsible use, advertising, and AI?
Clear, public ethical policies covering harmful uses, ads, and data/AI
3
Some relevant ethical policies, but partial or limited
1
No clear public ethical policies beyond the legal minimum, or existing policies are contradicted by the company's actual practices
0
//
5.4
Does the company provide public information or commitments regarding the environmental impact of its infrastructure?
No vendor-operated infrastructure at all: zero environmental impact from operations
2
Clear public information or commitments (e.g., green hosting providers, use of renewable energy, sustainability report)
2
Some indications (blog posts, partial mentions), but no coherent or up-to-date policy
1
No public information or commitments regarding environmental impact
0
//
Section score: 7/15
6
Longevity & Community
How long the project has been actively maintained and how healthy and engaged its user and contributor community is.
100%
6.1
How long has the project been actively maintained?
5+ years of continuous maintenance and releases
5
2–5 years of maintenance
3
Less than 2 years
1
//
6.2
How active and engaged is the project's community and contributor base?
Active community (forums/chats/issues), regular releases, visible roadmap
5
Maintained but quiet (few public contributors, infrequent releases)
3
Low activity, long gaps between releases, "abandoned" feel
0
//
Section score: 10/10