4 ms·

I upvoted you only because people should know where companies like gitlab stand on these kinds of issues. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing what he did was right

by nadams 11y ago

I upvoted you only because people should know where companies like gitlab stand on these kinds of issues. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing what he did was right - but it is important to know about it. I host my own free source code hosting service and I couldn't tell you what I would have done in his position. This question isn't meant to spark a heated debate (I'm on the fence and could argue either way) - but I'm honestly curious on how you think it should have been handled? I honestly want to know if there is an action that benefits everyone.

exstudent2 11y ago
Thank you for the upvote, I wish more people would engage in conversation vs. just downvote opinions they don't agree with. I think the best course of action is to have a policy of: "We don't delete repos unless required by law." That would satisfy me as a potential customer. I think commenting on Twitter and getting involved at all was probably a mistake unless they were going to stick with the above philosophy. All they did was call attention to the issue then delete the repo once everyone was watching. The tweet seems like an honest mistake since I don't think they wanted to get involved with this controversy. They made it though and had to make some decision on what to do. I think they chose the most damaging option. The staff doesn't have to personally endorse the opinions of their users and the repos they host. I wouldn't expect that of them, but they shouldn't delete repos they don't agree with.
- nadams 11y ago
  Would you be ok with a policy of: > We don't delete repos unless explicitly requested by law enforcement or a DMCA takedown notice. What you said could be interpreted as "well...this repo was technically breaking the law so that's why we deleted it" - I would rather say "I deleted it to cooperate with law enforcement". And the DMCA takedown policy is required to protect service providers in the event some idiot decides to upload copyrighted material - the RIAA/MPAA won't go after the service provider they will just ask them to take it down.
  - sytse 11y ago
    In case this is the policy it would mean we could not delete something like revenge porn ourselves, we would first have to wait for a takedown notice. I don't want to host content like that https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      That's why I don't want to do business with you. We already have a legal system to judge these things. GitLab doesn't need to take that on. Also, the GG repo had nothing to do with revenge porn. My initial post was promoting GitLab. I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing that anymore.
      - sytse 11y ago
        The legal system is not instant nor perfect.
        exstudent2 11y ago
        GitLab can do better? What jury decided to take down the GG repo? What checks and balances were in place? You're free to run your company as you see fit but a non-trivial amount of people do care strongly about free speech and due process.
        sytse 11y ago
        How many major platforms only take down content based on takedown requests and not by their own initiative? We care deeply about free speech too, but please get your own server https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
        Globrazu 11y ago
        http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ If you are legally required to take something down it is kind of different from when you freely choose to do so because you find the content objectionable on ideological grounds. In this case you decided to act against the principles of free speech and network neutrality of your own free will. Some for instance (GitHub, BitBucket, Google Code) also decided to remove the satirical "C+=" repo from their service, you didn't: https://gitlab.com/femsf/c-plus-equality https://gitlab.com/femsf/c-plus-equality For interested parties, there is actually a server that has existed for a while, but this is mostly about the choices you make as a company in the wake of GitHub deleting repos over the use of the word "retarded" and employing an intentionally discriminatory Code of Conduct: https://gitgud.io/gamergate/gamergateop/tree/master https://gitgud.io/gamergate/gamergateop/tree/master Nobody is arguing this isn't your right as a company, they are just questioning your judgment and reason and if their projects are safe with a company that will remove something that doesn't intellectually agree with the political stance of its CEO. All these people you saw surging to your service the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10003334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10003334 Most of them don't want to deal with the volatility of a professional environment where someone just has to be "offended" and their work could be arbitrarily pulled.

by nadams 11y ago

exstudent2 11y ago

Thank you for the upvote, I wish more people would engage in conversation vs. just downvote opinions they don't agree with. I think the best course of action is to have a policy of: "We don't delete repos unless required by law." That would satisfy me as a potential customer. I think commenting on Twitter and getting involved at all was probably a mistake unless they were going to stick with the above philosophy. All they did was call attention to the issue then delete the repo once everyone was watching. The tweet seems like an honest mistake since I don't think they wanted to get involved with this controversy. They made it though and had to make some decision on what to do. I think they chose the most damaging option. The staff doesn't have to personally endorse the opinions of their users and the repos they host. I wouldn't expect that of them, but they shouldn't delete repos they don't agree with.

nadams 11y ago
Would you be ok with a policy of: > We don't delete repos unless explicitly requested by law enforcement or a DMCA takedown notice. What you said could be interpreted as "well...this repo was technically breaking the law so that's why we deleted it" - I would rather say "I deleted it to cooperate with law enforcement". And the DMCA takedown policy is required to protect service providers in the event some idiot decides to upload copyrighted material - the RIAA/MPAA won't go after the service provider they will just ask them to take it down.
- sytse 11y ago
  In case this is the policy it would mean we could not delete something like revenge porn ourselves, we would first have to wait for a takedown notice. I don't want to host content like that https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    That's why I don't want to do business with you. We already have a legal system to judge these things. GitLab doesn't need to take that on. Also, the GG repo had nothing to do with revenge porn. My initial post was promoting GitLab. I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing that anymore.
    - sytse 11y ago
      The legal system is not instant nor perfect.
      - exstudent2 11y ago
        GitLab can do better? What jury decided to take down the GG repo? What checks and balances were in place? You're free to run your company as you see fit but a non-trivial amount of people do care strongly about free speech and due process.
        sytse 11y ago
        How many major platforms only take down content based on takedown requests and not by their own initiative? We care deeply about free speech too, but please get your own server https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
        Globrazu 11y ago
        http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ If you are legally required to take something down it is kind of different from when you freely choose to do so because you find the content objectionable on ideological grounds. In this case you decided to act against the principles of free speech and network neutrality of your own free will. Some for instance (GitHub, BitBucket, Google Code) also decided to remove the satirical "C+=" repo from their service, you didn't: https://gitlab.com/femsf/c-plus-equality https://gitlab.com/femsf/c-plus-equality For interested parties, there is actually a server that has existed for a while, but this is mostly about the choices you make as a company in the wake of GitHub deleting repos over the use of the word "retarded" and employing an intentionally discriminatory Code of Conduct: https://gitgud.io/gamergate/gamergateop/tree/master https://gitgud.io/gamergate/gamergateop/tree/master Nobody is arguing this isn't your right as a company, they are just questioning your judgment and reason and if their projects are safe with a company that will remove something that doesn't intellectually agree with the political stance of its CEO. All these people you saw surging to your service the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10003334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10003334 Most of them don't want to deal with the volatility of a professional environment where someone just has to be "offended" and their work could be arbitrarily pulled.