4 ms·
Despite what other people in this thread are saying, I believe the fact that this could occur is a much bigger problem than everyone seems to think. The fact th
by ghghgfdfgh 4y ago
Despite what other people in this thread are saying, I believe the fact that this could occur is a much bigger problem than everyone seems to think. The fact that a company can lock you out of your life with little justification and no opportunity for redemption is astounding to me.
A lot of people are saying that GitHub is a company, and that it has absolutely no responsibility to do business with the OP; they had the terms and they didn't follow them, end of story. Now put yourself in their shoes. There is a service that you use for work, and that you are not paying for. You do something wrong with the service - or maybe you didn't, what does it matter? - and you're banned. You are unable to do your job and you might be fired due to this. You ask for an explanation, or at least for a second chance, and are given no response. Who's at fault? The crux of the problem is related to quite a few issues, things that shouldn't be happening.
- GitHub basically entirely controls the market for the space it's in, giving the OP little alternatives to get a different job.
- GitHub does not have the time to respond to OP's support ticket but they do have the resources to overzealously ban them
Why is it like this? Yes, GitHub has no legal obligation to respond to OP, and that's tough luck for them. This really lends itself to the issue of GitHub being essentially a monopoly. It's the same thing with Google, Facebook, etc.; they all offer essential services that nobody else offers, and if they shut you out, it's over for you. GitHub has no legal obligation to do anything for OP, but the real problem is that they do not have any financial obligation to do anything. There's no alternative, nobody's just going to shift to GitLab; no matter how much GitHub fucks up, they have nothing to lose.
Another problem is the absurdity of the rules (although I obviously do not have full knowledge of what OP did and they could be leaving out important elements of the story) on sites like this. GitHub is a site for programming; why is it their place to moderate things from a social perspective? But that's a whole different story.
What I'm trying to say here is, the real problem is that there exist single companies that are allowed to destroy your life for any reason they want, without any retaliation or retribution. Your life could depend on single companies, with no alternatives. To me, it seems almost like a dystopian scenario.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Zak 4y agoGitHub's effective monopoly is the core problem, not its moderation policy. Getting banned from GitGud.io, an open-access GitLab instance won't meaningfully affect a person's ability to work in software development, but a ban from GitHub significantly limits one's options. The same goes for centralized social media. Moderation on Twitter and Youtube has been politically important recently not because there aren't other options for microblogging or video hosting with adequate functionality, but because they have the vast majority of the audience for that kind of content. I'm hoping people are starting to realize these monopolies are harmful and moving to more diversified options. > why is it their place to moderate things from a social perspective? The purpose of moderation is to prevent people from abandoning the platform because it's full of behavior or content they deem unacceptable. Most services don't want to take positions on social issues, but if discussions in open source projects on GitHub are full of slurs, threats, suggestions that people should kill themselves, and the like, people will stop using it.