7 ms·

GitHub has had no problems implementing censorship on their platform if it’s using their own values (see: WebM for Retards), so why should we care if they are n

GitHub has had no problems implementing censorship on their platform if it’s using their own values (see: WebM for Retards), so why should we care if they are now forced to censor using an external parties values? I was concerned when GitHub started censoring repositories that didn’t meet their code of conduct, but was told it was for the greater good. Now the issue is coming back to bite them it seems.

jwilk 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118
ekianjo 9y ago
Your comment is misguided. When private actors behave badly, you can opt out and go for competiting services. When the state mandates something your options run out. It is a pure attack on Freedom.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  When private actors that have a monopoly behave badly you can go to another but you will have a severely degraded experience. For example reddit, YouTube, Facebook, etc. There is no alternative if they block you, you just have to accept that you're no longer allowed to participate in a certain activity. GitHub is also quite like this.
  - yock 9y ago
    Alternatives exist, what you're complaining about is that they're not popular. You aren't entitled to viable alternatives. If a private business acts in a way contrary to your beliefs, your only option is to stop using them. Having an alternative private business to choose is nice, but never guaranteed.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      Can you tell me what's the alternative for Youtube? Or github? The alternative should be a real alternative, not a useless replica. For example, I should be able to watch latest movie trailers, music videos, tech reviews, etc. on the youtube alternative. And I should be able to report issues to Microsoft's VS code project. This is not just about popularity. On the internet, winner takes all. The monopoly is extreme in every type of website/service. If you can't use Youtube, you effectively cannot watch videos on the web. If you are banned by github, you cannot participate in the global open source community. There are 2 solutions: 1. Break the monopolies. 2. Force them to respect my rights, similar to the government.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        Git is a decentralized version system there is absolutely no reason to have to use Github to work on any open source project. Youtube is no monopoly. You have hundreds of sites offering video streaming services and you can broadcast your own as well using other services not affiliated to youtube. The fact that almost everyone uses Youtube does not make it a monopoly.
      - yock 9y ago
        > Break the monopolies Can you explain what makes Youtube and Github monopolies when both have competitors in the market? > Force them to respect my rights, similar to the government. What rights do you think you have that they are violating?
    - xg15 9y ago
      > When private actors behave badly, you can opt out and go for competiting services. > You aren't entitled to viable alternatives. ????
      - adventured 9y ago
        There's an extraordinary difference between you being entitled to a company being forced to exist to serve whatever arbitrary need or approach you wish, and there being an open market such that a competitor can set up shop. If you were entitled to alternatives, that means the tax payer has to reasonably fund every possible alternative that could exist, or at a minimum a vast array of them, and most likely at perpetual losses. It'd be extraordinarily dumb and would become an epic cost for the government and would breed corruption (failed businesses, bleeding vast red ink, perpetually subsidized no matter what they do).
- zaarn 9y ago
  GitHub has a networking effect with other open source projects, same as Facebook or Google. When Google decides you're not gonna show up in the search results, as much as 90% of your traffic could be gone. A business can (and have) go belly up for not showing up in page 1 of the search results. IMO if a service crosses a certain threshold of networking and marketshare they should be regarded as a public utility rather than a private business. The other option is to give such corporations an incredibly amount of power over what the population thinks, sees or, in github's case, codes.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Nobody is forcing you to use such services no matter how large their market share is. This is not the same as public utility where there is only one choice.
    - zaarn 9y ago
      Nobody is forcing you to use water from the faucet, the river is just outside town. Nobody is forcing you to use the electric grid, generator + gasoline is an option. Etc. Even for public utility you have a choice. It's not a good choice, which is what matters. Facebook and Google have definitely reached a state where not being part of their business (by being on Page 1 of the Results or having a Facebook Page) will actively harm your business. If either denies you service they also deny a lot of customers access to your service just like you'd get people denied service to a business when that business isn't connected to the power grid. And if you think that isn't true I urge you to talk to a PR department of a bigger corporation or a startup. Placement on Google and Facebook is very very important.
- dsego 9y ago
  You are also always free to leave a country and live somewhere else. There are plenty of countries in the world. Isn't that the same argument?
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    But almost no one is actually free to move to another country.
    - bzbarsky 9y ago
      If you replace "country" with "city" or "province", then pretty much everyone is in fact free to leave, legally. Yet we still consider it bad when such governments censor things.
      - lawn 9y ago
        In practice though you need a job and a new house. You might be legally free to leave but in reality you're not able to.
        bzbarsky 9y ago
        Right; my point was that "there are severe practical consequences for leaving" is exactly the situation with something like github.
        nybble41 9y ago
        The difference is that you are not entitled to receive service from GitHub. You are entitled to keep your own private property and to continue to interact voluntarily your current friends, family, and neighbors (and anyone else willing to deal with you). However, both of these liberties will be infringed by most governments if you attempt to remove yourself from their jurisdiction.
        bzbarsky 9y ago
- guitarbill 9y ago
  > When private actors behave badly, you can opt out and go for competiting services. Except when they're a quasi-monopoly, then people find it more difficult to opt out. Hence anti-trust laws, and more recently, GDPR. > It is a pure attack on Freedom. By definition, all laws are exactly that. The question is never "does this law restrict my freedom?" but always "on balance, am I happy with the way this law restricts my/others freedom, and what might be the (un)intended consequences?". So while it's a dumb proposal, it's hardly more stifling to creativity than 70+ years of draconian copyright protection.
  - lerpa 9y ago
    You're still free to open a competing service, and can leverage the fact that you are better than the other guys as free advertisement basically.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
Every company, every person is entitled to decide what content they are willing to support. You are free to disagree with decisions that company makes, and take your business elsewhere. That is obviously, qualitatively different from an argument about proposed legislation being bad, that it's hard to see how one could draw a comparison between them in good faith.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  > Every company, every person is entitled to decide what content they are willing to support. You are free to disagree with decisions that company makes, and take your business elsewhere. Including Christian bakers? I don't really disagree with your free market approach, but that doesn't seem to be the way things stand.

jwilk 9y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118

ekianjo 9y ago

Your comment is misguided. When private actors behave badly, you can opt out and go for competiting services. When the state mandates something your options run out. It is a pure attack on Freedom.

dingo_bat 9y ago
When private actors that have a monopoly behave badly you can go to another but you will have a severely degraded experience. For example reddit, YouTube, Facebook, etc. There is no alternative if they block you, you just have to accept that you're no longer allowed to participate in a certain activity. GitHub is also quite like this.
- yock 9y ago
  Alternatives exist, what you're complaining about is that they're not popular. You aren't entitled to viable alternatives. If a private business acts in a way contrary to your beliefs, your only option is to stop using them. Having an alternative private business to choose is nice, but never guaranteed.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    Can you tell me what's the alternative for Youtube? Or github? The alternative should be a real alternative, not a useless replica. For example, I should be able to watch latest movie trailers, music videos, tech reviews, etc. on the youtube alternative. And I should be able to report issues to Microsoft's VS code project. This is not just about popularity. On the internet, winner takes all. The monopoly is extreme in every type of website/service. If you can't use Youtube, you effectively cannot watch videos on the web. If you are banned by github, you cannot participate in the global open source community. There are 2 solutions: 1. Break the monopolies. 2. Force them to respect my rights, similar to the government.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      Git is a decentralized version system there is absolutely no reason to have to use Github to work on any open source project. Youtube is no monopoly. You have hundreds of sites offering video streaming services and you can broadcast your own as well using other services not affiliated to youtube. The fact that almost everyone uses Youtube does not make it a monopoly.
    - yock 9y ago
      > Break the monopolies Can you explain what makes Youtube and Github monopolies when both have competitors in the market? > Force them to respect my rights, similar to the government. What rights do you think you have that they are violating?
  - xg15 9y ago
    > When private actors behave badly, you can opt out and go for competiting services. > You aren't entitled to viable alternatives. ????
    - adventured 9y ago
      There's an extraordinary difference between you being entitled to a company being forced to exist to serve whatever arbitrary need or approach you wish, and there being an open market such that a competitor can set up shop. If you were entitled to alternatives, that means the tax payer has to reasonably fund every possible alternative that could exist, or at a minimum a vast array of them, and most likely at perpetual losses. It'd be extraordinarily dumb and would become an epic cost for the government and would breed corruption (failed businesses, bleeding vast red ink, perpetually subsidized no matter what they do).
zaarn 9y ago
GitHub has a networking effect with other open source projects, same as Facebook or Google. When Google decides you're not gonna show up in the search results, as much as 90% of your traffic could be gone. A business can (and have) go belly up for not showing up in page 1 of the search results. IMO if a service crosses a certain threshold of networking and marketshare they should be regarded as a public utility rather than a private business. The other option is to give such corporations an incredibly amount of power over what the population thinks, sees or, in github's case, codes.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Nobody is forcing you to use such services no matter how large their market share is. This is not the same as public utility where there is only one choice.
  - zaarn 9y ago
    Nobody is forcing you to use water from the faucet, the river is just outside town. Nobody is forcing you to use the electric grid, generator + gasoline is an option. Etc. Even for public utility you have a choice. It's not a good choice, which is what matters. Facebook and Google have definitely reached a state where not being part of their business (by being on Page 1 of the Results or having a Facebook Page) will actively harm your business. If either denies you service they also deny a lot of customers access to your service just like you'd get people denied service to a business when that business isn't connected to the power grid. And if you think that isn't true I urge you to talk to a PR department of a bigger corporation or a startup. Placement on Google and Facebook is very very important.
dsego 9y ago
You are also always free to leave a country and live somewhere else. There are plenty of countries in the world. Isn't that the same argument?
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  But almost no one is actually free to move to another country.
  - bzbarsky 9y ago
    If you replace "country" with "city" or "province", then pretty much everyone is in fact free to leave, legally. Yet we still consider it bad when such governments censor things.
    - lawn 9y ago
      In practice though you need a job and a new house. You might be legally free to leave but in reality you're not able to.
      - bzbarsky 9y ago
        Right; my point was that "there are severe practical consequences for leaving" is exactly the situation with something like github.
        nybble41 9y ago
        The difference is that you are not entitled to receive service from GitHub. You are entitled to keep your own private property and to continue to interact voluntarily your current friends, family, and neighbors (and anyone else willing to deal with you). However, both of these liberties will be infringed by most governments if you attempt to remove yourself from their jurisdiction.
        bzbarsky 9y ago
guitarbill 9y ago
> When private actors behave badly, you can opt out and go for competiting services. Except when they're a quasi-monopoly, then people find it more difficult to opt out. Hence anti-trust laws, and more recently, GDPR. > It is a pure attack on Freedom. By definition, all laws are exactly that. The question is never "does this law restrict my freedom?" but always "on balance, am I happy with the way this law restricts my/others freedom, and what might be the (un)intended consequences?". So while it's a dumb proposal, it's hardly more stifling to creativity than 70+ years of draconian copyright protection.
- lerpa 9y ago
  You're still free to open a competing service, and can leverage the fact that you are better than the other guys as free advertisement basically.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

Every company, every person is entitled to decide what content they are willing to support. You are free to disagree with decisions that company makes, and take your business elsewhere. That is obviously, qualitatively different from an argument about proposed legislation being bad, that it's hard to see how one could draw a comparison between them in good faith.

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
> Every company, every person is entitled to decide what content they are willing to support. You are free to disagree with decisions that company makes, and take your business elsewhere. Including Christian bakers? I don't really disagree with your free market approach, but that doesn't seem to be the way things stand.