4 ms·

It's funny how threatened people feel by what GH was/is trying to do, when that remains their first and only association (two?) years after a minor incident whe

It's funny how threatened people feel by what GH was/is trying to do, when that remains their first and only association (two?) years after a minor incident where some support person made a mistake. I'd also question the assumption that it's possible to run a business completely "neutral". That just means remaining in the Status Quo, which is exactly what the "other side" of that debate wants. Is it unfair to promote women so as to increase the share of female CEOs (Fortune 500: 4%)? Yes, it could be. But doing nothing is not neutral.

kawsper 10y ago
> after a minor incident where some support person made a mistake. I haven't heard about that, do you mind sharing the story?
- matt4077 10y ago
  I honestly don't remember the details – a customer service rep locked or deleted a repository because of a complaint about a word in it, which je completely misunderstood. Something like master/slave. Someone else also proclaimed their support for affirmative-action hiring on twitter, in words that some of my white cis-male brothers felt were insulting. (they actually were, but until I've picked cotton for a decade or been shot by police I'm not going to consider myself victimized). From there on, GH has been under strict observation. They're obviously on the progressive end of the spectrum so people are now finding new transgressions left and right. Community guidelines were the last. They're not different from Google or any number of SV companies, but the association seems to stick.
flukus 10y ago
It's certainly not the only one. Another big one was opal gate: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 Github hired the her after that to thought police all of github. I don't particularly care how they're run internally but I don't want to do business with a service that will ban your account for political disagreements.

kawsper 10y ago

> after a minor incident where some support person made a mistake. I haven't heard about that, do you mind sharing the story?

matt4077 10y ago
I honestly don't remember the details – a customer service rep locked or deleted a repository because of a complaint about a word in it, which je completely misunderstood. Something like master/slave. Someone else also proclaimed their support for affirmative-action hiring on twitter, in words that some of my white cis-male brothers felt were insulting. (they actually were, but until I've picked cotton for a decade or been shot by police I'm not going to consider myself victimized). From there on, GH has been under strict observation. They're obviously on the progressive end of the spectrum so people are now finding new transgressions left and right. Community guidelines were the last. They're not different from Google or any number of SV companies, but the association seems to stick.

flukus 10y ago

It's certainly not the only one. Another big one was opal gate: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 Github hired the her after that to thought police all of github. I don't particularly care how they're run internally but I don't want to do business with a service that will ban your account for political disagreements.