8 ms·

What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. This is a di

by syshum 5y ago

What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. This is a divide that extends well beyond programming and this topic. People that support GitHub actions believe in the concept of "greater good" and believe the actions of GitHub are ethical because it prevented harm to the community People that oppose GitHub actions reject the idea of "the greater good" and believe this individual should have had the right to do with their property (i,e their code) anything they wanted and the responsibility was upon the people consuming / using that code to vet it before use.

chasd00 5y ago
I have a feeling bare metal servers, a leased spot in a cage, and self hosted systems is about to become popular. There are just too many stories like this these days. I’m in the camp that if it was his repo then he can do whatever the eff he wants to it.
krsrhe 5y ago
phs318u 5y ago
Except that use of GitHub implies you see a benefit to the collectivist use of GitHub's property, which is why you agree to GitHub's terms when using their property. If I'm leasing a part of my land to you (and others), and your use of your assets on my land has the potential to harm other users of my land - you'll be asked to leave. I have a business to run. You are still free to take your property to your own patch of land and do with it what you will. Your freedom has not been compromised. You just assumed a freedom you did not have - which is the use of my land in an unfettered way.
smt88 5y ago
> What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. I am extremely individualistic. Github is also an "individual" that has its own private rights. The author of this library absolutely had the right to write code, change it, etc. He does not have the right to use Github as a delivery mechanism for malware.
- syshum 5y ago
  Had github simply banned the person, and took down their code I might have even sided with your position However that is not what github did.
bee_rider 5y ago
I don't really see it that way -- GitHub is run by a company to (albeit somewhat nebulously) make money. They almost certainly made this call because distributing an obviously malicious package like this was damaging to their brand, not through some philosophical framework. Expecting a company to have a moral framework is just setting yourself up for disappointment. They will always just do what they think will maximize their long term ROI. Possibilities lay between "enlightened self interest" and "barefaced self interest."
DonHopkins 5y ago
Yeah, but most vocal proponents of so-called "individuality" are simply self-centered anti-social assholes who haven't thought through the Libertarian ideologies they parrot deeply enough to realize how extremely dependent on and beneficial from collectivism they actually are, and they continue bitching about "socialism" while sucking the government's tit with their social security and disability benefits and medicare, and driving on the roads in their trucks while "rolling goal" and waving their guns at pedestrians and bicyclists and electric cars, and calling the fire department when their house catches on fire, and calling an ambulance when they accidentally shoot themselves in the dick while "cleaning their gun", and foaming at the mouth and railing against Obamacare for no better reason than the person THEY renamed the ACA after is black, then refusing to self isolate and wear masks and take vaccines, and finally overcrowding the hospitals and cursing at health care workers when they get sick, then running GoFundMe campaigns to pay for their "unexpected" self inflicted illness and funeral, and some even go as far as using projects hosted on github and hosting their own projects on github for free, and then complaining when github takes down the malicious repo of another mentally ill person whose apartment the police had to break into and remove his bomb making supplies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- syshum 5y ago
  >>trucks while "rolling goal" If you are going to insult people at least get the terminology correct, it is rolling coal, not goal. Further most people rolling coal are not libertarian. >>d "individuality" are simply self-centered anti-social assholes who haven't thought through the Libertarian ideologies they parrot deeply enough to realize how extremely dependent on and beneficial from collectivism they actually are Incorrect, Libertarians / Individualists do not reject the concept of society or working in groups to accomplish a goal. However they believe said interactions should be VOLUNTARY, and not forced upon you by 3rd party actors. >>against Obamacare for no better reason than the person THEY renamed the ACA after is black, Ohh yes, the only possible reasons someone could oppose ACA is because of racism.
  - 5y ago
cxr 5y ago
> What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but we're diametrically opposed on how these two groups are allocated. I.e., the people you're labelling as collectivists I are in the other group, and vice versa. People who think GitHub did right are a real me-first bunch, not collectivists.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I'm not sure how we get to me-first when the story is one actor using the wide-cast popularity of packages he had admin rights to to intentionally cause harm. It's a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situation.
  - outsomnia 5y ago
    It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies, and Microsoft of all people, are the communistic heroes in your telling.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Not all FOSS are selfish baddies. Not even most. Not even many. But Marak specifically is, and Microsoft being the good actor is indicative of how badly he messed up. If his goal was to make a statement about big corporations taking more than they give to FOSS, arranging things so Microsoft gets to be the hero was a foolish way to go about it.
    - fault1 5y ago
      I mean, catering to the needs of the many rather than the few has pretty much been npm policy since left-pad-gate: https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unpublish-policy https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unp...
    - 5y ago

by syshum 5y ago

chasd00 5y ago

I have a feeling bare metal servers, a leased spot in a cage, and self hosted systems is about to become popular. There are just too many stories like this these days. I’m in the camp that if it was his repo then he can do whatever the eff he wants to it.

krsrhe 5y ago

phs318u 5y ago

Except that use of GitHub implies you see a benefit to the collectivist use of GitHub's property, which is why you agree to GitHub's terms when using their property. If I'm leasing a part of my land to you (and others), and your use of your assets on my land has the potential to harm other users of my land - you'll be asked to leave. I have a business to run. You are still free to take your property to your own patch of land and do with it what you will. Your freedom has not been compromised. You just assumed a freedom you did not have - which is the use of my land in an unfettered way.

smt88 5y ago

> What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. I am extremely individualistic. Github is also an "individual" that has its own private rights. The author of this library absolutely had the right to write code, change it, etc. He does not have the right to use Github as a delivery mechanism for malware.

syshum 5y ago
Had github simply banned the person, and took down their code I might have even sided with your position However that is not what github did.

bee_rider 5y ago

I don't really see it that way -- GitHub is run by a company to (albeit somewhat nebulously) make money. They almost certainly made this call because distributing an obviously malicious package like this was damaging to their brand, not through some philosophical framework. Expecting a company to have a moral framework is just setting yourself up for disappointment. They will always just do what they think will maximize their long term ROI. Possibilities lay between "enlightened self interest" and "barefaced self interest."

DonHopkins 5y ago

Yeah, but most vocal proponents of so-called "individuality" are simply self-centered anti-social assholes who haven't thought through the Libertarian ideologies they parrot deeply enough to realize how extremely dependent on and beneficial from collectivism they actually are, and they continue bitching about "socialism" while sucking the government's tit with their social security and disability benefits and medicare, and driving on the roads in their trucks while "rolling goal" and waving their guns at pedestrians and bicyclists and electric cars, and calling the fire department when their house catches on fire, and calling an ambulance when they accidentally shoot themselves in the dick while "cleaning their gun", and foaming at the mouth and railing against Obamacare for no better reason than the person THEY renamed the ACA after is black, then refusing to self isolate and wear masks and take vaccines, and finally overcrowding the hospitals and cursing at health care workers when they get sick, then running GoFundMe campaigns to pay for their "unexpected" self inflicted illness and funeral, and some even go as far as using projects hosted on github and hosting their own projects on github for free, and then complaining when github takes down the malicious repo of another mentally ill person whose apartment the police had to break into and remove his bomb making supplies.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
syshum 5y ago
>>trucks while "rolling goal" If you are going to insult people at least get the terminology correct, it is rolling coal, not goal. Further most people rolling coal are not libertarian. >>d "individuality" are simply self-centered anti-social assholes who haven't thought through the Libertarian ideologies they parrot deeply enough to realize how extremely dependent on and beneficial from collectivism they actually are Incorrect, Libertarians / Individualists do not reject the concept of society or working in groups to accomplish a goal. However they believe said interactions should be VOLUNTARY, and not forced upon you by 3rd party actors. >>against Obamacare for no better reason than the person THEY renamed the ACA after is black, Ohh yes, the only possible reasons someone could oppose ACA is because of racism.
- 5y ago

cxr 5y ago

> What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but we're diametrically opposed on how these two groups are allocated. I.e., the people you're labelling as collectivists I are in the other group, and vice versa. People who think GitHub did right are a real me-first bunch, not collectivists.

shadowgovt 5y ago
I'm not sure how we get to me-first when the story is one actor using the wide-cast popularity of packages he had admin rights to to intentionally cause harm. It's a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situation.
- outsomnia 5y ago
  It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies, and Microsoft of all people, are the communistic heroes in your telling.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Not all FOSS are selfish baddies. Not even most. Not even many. But Marak specifically is, and Microsoft being the good actor is indicative of how badly he messed up. If his goal was to make a statement about big corporations taking more than they give to FOSS, arranging things so Microsoft gets to be the hero was a foolish way to go about it.
  - fault1 5y ago
    I mean, catering to the needs of the many rather than the few has pretty much been npm policy since left-pad-gate: https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unpublish-policy https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unp...
  - 5y ago