4 ms·

I work at GitHub. This is not new, and I promise it’s not a dark pattern. As a sibling comment noted, someone with sufficient permissions in this repo used the

by brasic 4y ago

I work at GitHub. This is not new, and I promise it’s not a dark pattern. As a sibling comment noted, someone with sufficient permissions in this repo used the “minimize” function on these comments. This is normally intended for disruptive or off-topic messages, but ultimately it’s up to the owners of the repository how they make use of our moderation tools. https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-and-conversations/managing-disruptive-comments https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-a... Before I worked here I had no idea how much GitHub invests in platform health. It’s nearly invisible to most users but just like every other part of the internet that draws eyeballs we are under an enormous flood of spam at all times. IMO It’s a testament to how well the system works that many years after this functionality was introduced this is the first time you encountered it.

noasaservice 4y ago
Sigh. This is yet more gated content on the hopes someone or something does the right thing. I deleted my account when GH demanded a separate license for everything I had (for that ml crap you made, no less). My answer in dealing with GH is to create fake emails, do the register bullshit, and get what I need, and throw the acct away. I'll save my stuff for my GL instance, or go to sourcehut. Excuses to gatekeep can rightly die in a fire, and let the crucible sort it out.
- b3morales 4y ago
  > when GH demanded a separate license for everything I had Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean explicitly demanded, or do you just mean the way they asserted that licenses didn't matter for Copilot?
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13597340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13597340 This was written about Feb 8 2017, when Github changed their license to require ANY content to be dual-licensed to the following: Solely to allow us to provide the Service and to host the Content you upload to the Website without violating any rights you have in it, you grant GitHub and our successors a nonexclusive, worldwide, transferable, fully-paid and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, display, modify, adapt, distribute, and perform the Content in connection with rendering the Website and providing the Service. User:nsqe said they helped write it and said they would "revise it to clear up confusion". Naturally, that was never done. Instead, I would argue that this change was what allowed them to monetize so much open source under various licenses into their own proprietary "forever license". That's what makes Copilot actually doable. And naturally, if you migrated code to GH, then it's your 'fault' for not recognizing that any uploads to GH forever-dual license.
    - majewsky 4y ago
      If they did not have this clause, they would be in breach of copyright as soon as they display any source code listing to anyone (including logged-in users). If other repository services don't have something to the same effect in their ToC, it's a sign that they don't have a competent legal department.
      - noasaservice 4y ago
        That's completely not true. If it's a FLOSS or similar copyright license, they'd be using the same copyright to display that copy. They don't need special permissions. If a person uploads a non-permissive license (or sets a license that is as such), then they would be in the rights to set it to private and charge, or to remove it. It's very suspicious that they do not force a license set, nor remove repos for no license.
        majewsky 4y ago
        When the code is under a non-permissive license, that means by definition that GitHub cannot derive any usage rights from it. However, displaying the source code on the website (even to a logged-in user! even to the original rights holder!) is a type of "usage". Therefore they would be in breach of copyright. ToS is the only place where they can derive the necessary usage rights. In certain jurisdictions, usage rights may be conferred by an implied-in-fact contract. But for a company like GitHub that operates almost globally, it's probably a very bad idea to rely on local legal interpretations of the scope of implied-in-fact contracts.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
2 things about this. 1. The user was led to their misconception because the ui did not provide any better conception. Perhaps the label should add the words "... by a repo admin" or something. 2. This still does not explain why there should be any difference between an anonymous and a logged-in user for merely reading. If the repo owner is to be given the power to hide comments, why should a logged-in but otherwise unspecial user be able to override that? If a logged-in but otherwise unspecial user should have the option to unhide, why only when they are logged in?

by brasic 4y ago

noasaservice 4y ago

Sigh. This is yet more gated content on the hopes someone or something does the right thing. I deleted my account when GH demanded a separate license for everything I had (for that ml crap you made, no less). My answer in dealing with GH is to create fake emails, do the register bullshit, and get what I need, and throw the acct away. I'll save my stuff for my GL instance, or go to sourcehut. Excuses to gatekeep can rightly die in a fire, and let the crucible sort it out.

b3morales 4y ago
> when GH demanded a separate license for everything I had Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean explicitly demanded, or do you just mean the way they asserted that licenses didn't matter for Copilot?
- noasaservice 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13597340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13597340 This was written about Feb 8 2017, when Github changed their license to require ANY content to be dual-licensed to the following: Solely to allow us to provide the Service and to host the Content you upload to the Website without violating any rights you have in it, you grant GitHub and our successors a nonexclusive, worldwide, transferable, fully-paid and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, display, modify, adapt, distribute, and perform the Content in connection with rendering the Website and providing the Service. User:nsqe said they helped write it and said they would "revise it to clear up confusion". Naturally, that was never done. Instead, I would argue that this change was what allowed them to monetize so much open source under various licenses into their own proprietary "forever license". That's what makes Copilot actually doable. And naturally, if you migrated code to GH, then it's your 'fault' for not recognizing that any uploads to GH forever-dual license.
  - majewsky 4y ago
    If they did not have this clause, they would be in breach of copyright as soon as they display any source code listing to anyone (including logged-in users). If other repository services don't have something to the same effect in their ToC, it's a sign that they don't have a competent legal department.
    - noasaservice 4y ago
      That's completely not true. If it's a FLOSS or similar copyright license, they'd be using the same copyright to display that copy. They don't need special permissions. If a person uploads a non-permissive license (or sets a license that is as such), then they would be in the rights to set it to private and charge, or to remove it. It's very suspicious that they do not force a license set, nor remove repos for no license.
      - majewsky 4y ago
        When the code is under a non-permissive license, that means by definition that GitHub cannot derive any usage rights from it. However, displaying the source code on the website (even to a logged-in user! even to the original rights holder!) is a type of "usage". Therefore they would be in breach of copyright. ToS is the only place where they can derive the necessary usage rights. In certain jurisdictions, usage rights may be conferred by an implied-in-fact contract. But for a company like GitHub that operates almost globally, it's probably a very bad idea to rely on local legal interpretations of the scope of implied-in-fact contracts.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

2 things about this. 1. The user was led to their misconception because the ui did not provide any better conception. Perhaps the label should add the words "... by a repo admin" or something. 2. This still does not explain why there should be any difference between an anonymous and a logged-in user for merely reading. If the repo owner is to be given the power to hide comments, why should a logged-in but otherwise unspecial user be able to override that? If a logged-in but otherwise unspecial user should have the option to unhide, why only when they are logged in?