5 ms·

Sure, but do you really want to live in a world where a 3rd party can block your employment for something you said that is merely offensive but not against the

by ch4s3 4y ago

Sure, but do you really want to live in a world where a 3rd party can block your employment for something you said that is merely offensive but not against the law? Even worse, a ban with no a appeal process that lasts forever.

tptacek 4y ago
Again: I don't understand why anybody expects GitHub to moderate or adjudicate these dramas. They're a source code hosting site, not a university disciplinary board.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I totally agree. I don't even see how they have any upside here, if they do this too much they'll lose business and doing it at all invites people to demand that they keep doing it.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I don't understand. The problem is that they did want to moderate/adjudicate this across the entire site.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No: a user caused problems for them, and they kicked them off the site, the same way you'd get kicked out of a McDonalds for walking in without pants. If you do the Internet equivalent of walking into GitHub without pants and they kick you off, and you gave them money, we can have a conversation about whether they should give you your money back (I guess I probably would). But other than that, what's there to talk about? Make a new account that isn't traceable to the reputation you lit on fire, or go to any of the other perfectly viable Git hosting sites. You can even run your own. I get not wanting to tell your boss why your old GitHub account doesn't work anymore, but: you're going to have to have that conversation, probably.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Make a new account that isn't traceable to the reputation you lit on fire They tried... And doing that leaves a blade dangling above your head even if your behavior is perfect on the new account. Why can't there be anything you can do to wipe the slate mostly clean? Maybe even donating $100 to charity and giving github a few dollars for wasting their time.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        If you really feel like GitHub bans are a "blade dangling over your head", use GitLab, or Source Hut. GitHub is not going to develop a charity-linked rehabilitation program for people who shit on their carpet. They're just going to ban you. They're a business, not a public utility. There's some unpleasant subtext to being blocked from GitHub that has nothing to do with someone's ability to write code: it's that your employer is certainly going to ask "uh, why are you not able to make a GitHub account?", and when you tell them "because I shat on GitHub's carpet", they may very well fire you. But that's on you, not GitHub.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > They're a business, not a public utility. That's the standard line. And it has problems when applied to companies with tens of millions of users.
        tptacek 4y ago
        People say it has problems, because that makes for fun message board debates, but the arguments are deeply unserious. Go use Source Hut.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Saying that there's a sliding scale toward being effectively a utility is "deeply unserious"? Is it also "deeply unserious" when I say it's bad that shopping malls are privately owned areas masquerading as public spaces, which lets them ban people in ways that actual public spaces can't? Because there's a lot of literature on that topic, and I see it as pretty similar.

by ch4s3 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

Again: I don't understand why anybody expects GitHub to moderate or adjudicate these dramas. They're a source code hosting site, not a university disciplinary board.

ch4s3 4y ago
I totally agree. I don't even see how they have any upside here, if they do this too much they'll lose business and doing it at all invites people to demand that they keep doing it.
Dylan16807 4y ago
I don't understand. The problem is that they did want to moderate/adjudicate this across the entire site.
- tptacek 4y ago
  No: a user caused problems for them, and they kicked them off the site, the same way you'd get kicked out of a McDonalds for walking in without pants. If you do the Internet equivalent of walking into GitHub without pants and they kick you off, and you gave them money, we can have a conversation about whether they should give you your money back (I guess I probably would). But other than that, what's there to talk about? Make a new account that isn't traceable to the reputation you lit on fire, or go to any of the other perfectly viable Git hosting sites. You can even run your own. I get not wanting to tell your boss why your old GitHub account doesn't work anymore, but: you're going to have to have that conversation, probably.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Make a new account that isn't traceable to the reputation you lit on fire They tried... And doing that leaves a blade dangling above your head even if your behavior is perfect on the new account. Why can't there be anything you can do to wipe the slate mostly clean? Maybe even donating $100 to charity and giving github a few dollars for wasting their time.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      If you really feel like GitHub bans are a "blade dangling over your head", use GitLab, or Source Hut. GitHub is not going to develop a charity-linked rehabilitation program for people who shit on their carpet. They're just going to ban you. They're a business, not a public utility. There's some unpleasant subtext to being blocked from GitHub that has nothing to do with someone's ability to write code: it's that your employer is certainly going to ask "uh, why are you not able to make a GitHub account?", and when you tell them "because I shat on GitHub's carpet", they may very well fire you. But that's on you, not GitHub.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > They're a business, not a public utility. That's the standard line. And it has problems when applied to companies with tens of millions of users.
        tptacek 4y ago
        People say it has problems, because that makes for fun message board debates, but the arguments are deeply unserious. Go use Source Hut.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Saying that there's a sliding scale toward being effectively a utility is "deeply unserious"? Is it also "deeply unserious" when I say it's bad that shopping malls are privately owned areas masquerading as public spaces, which lets them ban people in ways that actual public spaces can't? Because there's a lot of literature on that topic, and I see it as pretty similar.