3 ms·
HN changed the title of this from the original question: “GitHub censors deepfake source code for non logged in users? (Try incognito)” I have no opinion about
by jordwalke 8y ago
HN changed the title of this from the original question: “GitHub censors deepfake source code for non logged in users? (Try incognito)”
I have no opinion about whether or not that is a better title, but I thought it should be known that it was modified from its original.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoGood you mention it, because I did not understand intended meaning of current title ("Faceswap Github repo is public but requires a logged in user"). I scoured the README to see how they managed to restrict a standalone, offline piece of software. Turns out, it's Github who's restricting access. While censorship may not be an appropriate word, this is weird. Why would Github do something like that, except to force people accessing the repo to leave a trail leading to their PII?
- dang 8y agoThat's a fair point. I've modified it again to make it clearer that it's Github that did the restriction.
- DeepHomage 8y agoYou're way off base thinking that having users log in is some form of covert censorship from Github or Microsoft. I've been around the community and making deepfakes since before the reddit ban, and that repro has always required login, but not reasons your title implied. You're just guessing without any facts to back up your speculation.
- dang 8y agoA moderator changed it because of the tendentious use of the word 'censors'. Initially we changed it to the title of this issue that addresses the topic: https://github.com/deepfakes/faceswap/issues/392 https://github.com/deepfakes/faceswap/issues/392, but it turns out that wording was a bit unclear, so we modified it to be clearer.
- jordwalke 8y agoI like the latest title better than the one it was first changed to, thanks.