4 ms·

Instead of just saying they won't do it for free accounts, they could charge a fee for the service.

Androider 6y ago
They do, it just happens to be a $4 / month fee and they'll even throw in some other features ;) For security reasons you cannot pay for the service if you're not able to access the account, so you better enable it ahead of time.
Rapzid 6y ago
This is the answer. Charge 2-4 years worth of basic subscription to recover. Or a 1 year up-front payment and recurring after that. Otherwise, with no path forward, this is just user hostile.
- TheChaplain 6y ago
  Then next post on HN will be how GitLab is "blackmailing" users who lost their credentials...
JadeNB 6y ago
Good God, imagine the bad publicity that comes out of that. "This is advertised as a security measure, but it's clear it's just a way to extort the user at his most vulnerable!"
- quadrangle 6y ago
  I don't know. Free service that isn't even paid for with ads or privacy-invasion, like legitimately free. If something happens on your end, you can pay them for service. What's wrong? Which is worse publicity: A) if you use this security feature, and something goes wrong on your side, you will lose your account forever B) if you use this security feature, and something goes wrong on your side, helping you get your account back will require a lot of work and due-diligence which we can't afford to do for free It's not SO different from: A) if your device fails outside the warranty, it cannot be repaired vs B) if your device fails outside the warranty, it will be expensive to repair
  - JadeNB 6y ago
    > Which is worse publicity: I think it's not so clear. If someone tells me "I can't authenticate, and so I'm locked out of my account", that sounds like his fault. If someone tells me "I can't authenticate, and they'll let me into my account, but only if I pay them money", then that sounds like their fault. I do carefully say sounds—I recognise the underlying tech is the same in both cases; but the nature of publicity is to attach much more about appearance than to technical facts.

They do, it just happens to be a $4 / month fee and they'll even throw in some other features ;) For security reasons you cannot pay for the service if you're not able to access the account, so you better enable it ahead of time.

Rapzid 6y ago

This is the answer. Charge 2-4 years worth of basic subscription to recover. Or a 1 year up-front payment and recurring after that. Otherwise, with no path forward, this is just user hostile.

TheChaplain 6y ago
Then next post on HN will be how GitLab is "blackmailing" users who lost their credentials...

JadeNB 6y ago

Good God, imagine the bad publicity that comes out of that. "This is advertised as a security measure, but it's clear it's just a way to extort the user at his most vulnerable!"

quadrangle 6y ago
I don't know. Free service that isn't even paid for with ads or privacy-invasion, like legitimately free. If something happens on your end, you can pay them for service. What's wrong? Which is worse publicity: A) if you use this security feature, and something goes wrong on your side, you will lose your account forever B) if you use this security feature, and something goes wrong on your side, helping you get your account back will require a lot of work and due-diligence which we can't afford to do for free It's not SO different from: A) if your device fails outside the warranty, it cannot be repaired vs B) if your device fails outside the warranty, it will be expensive to repair
- JadeNB 6y ago
  > Which is worse publicity: I think it's not so clear. If someone tells me "I can't authenticate, and so I'm locked out of my account", that sounds like his fault. If someone tells me "I can't authenticate, and they'll let me into my account, but only if I pay them money", then that sounds like their fault. I do carefully say sounds—I recognise the underlying tech is the same in both cases; but the nature of publicity is to attach much more about appearance than to technical facts.