Anonymous visitors can now browse public chat channels on new sites by default

AI-generated summary

This announcement details a change where public chat channels on new Discourse sites are now visible to anonymous visitors by default in a read-only view. This allows users to browse community activity and follow conversations before creating an account, as explained by rishabh. Existing sites are unaffected, as their current chat allowed groups settings are preserved during migration.

Site administrators can manage this access via Settings → Chat → chat allowed groups. To disable anonymous viewing, the anonymous group must be removed from this list. Regarding user inquiries, mcwumbly confirmed that adding the anonymous_users group grants strictly read-only access, ensuring private channels remain secure for self-hosted instances.

On new Discourse sites, chat channels are now visible to everyone by default, including anonymous visitors in a read-only view.

This means visitors can discover your community’s chat activity without needing to create an account first. They can browse public channels, follow the conversation, get a feel for the community, and sign up when they’re ready :sparkles:

What about existing sites? Nothing changes. A migration preserves your current chat allowed groups setting, so existing sites will keep whatever configuration they already have.

Admin control: You can manage anonymous access (and access for other trust levels) via Settings → Chat → chat allowed groups in the admin dashboard. To disable anonymous chat viewing, remove the anonymous group from that list.

12 Likes

Hello, nice thing. But is there a reason to not show it in the header too?

Existing Discourse - self hosted - just so i’m sure because I don’t want to expose private channels - in Chat > Settings > Chat allowed groups

it says:

Users in these groups can chat, except anonymous users who can only view chat when added to this setting

so adding group anonymous_users is always going to only be read only chat access correct?

2 Likes

yep, that’s correct.

1 Like