3 ms·

Even though you are right, that misses the point terribly. It's like using Instagram or Facebook. It's not at all a matter of individual choice when all your f

Even though you are right, that misses the point terribly. It's like using Instagram or Facebook. It's not at all a matter of individual choice when all your friends are on one single platform. Sure you can host your code anywhere, but by not using GitHub you are potentially missing out on a very vibrant community. It's all Microsoft to blame. It bought the medium and took an entire community hostage in the process just for the sake of profit.

layer8 1y ago
While Microsoft is certainly to blame, GP is also right that the problem wouldn’t exist if people hadn’t continued en masse to have their code hosted on a centralized proprietary and (since 2012) VC-funded platform in the first place. As an aside, I don’t really see GitHub as a whole as a community. It’s a go-to place with network effects, but network effects doesn’t by itself imply “community”.
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  Yeah, I said that first thing. It's right but it misses the point. Being VC backed isn't a deciding factor for adopting a forge. It's the community that drives adoption. > I don’t really see GitHub as a whole as a community. It's basically a social network on top of a source code forge. You have a profile that is individually identifiable, you can open issues and contribute to discussions on pull requests. All this can be tracked back to every individual while they collaborate and make connections while they contribute to each other. How is this not a community?
  - layer8 1y ago
    > Being VC backed isn't a deciding factor for adopting a forge. It's the community that drives adoption. OP is arguing that VC should be a deciding factor. The “community” wouldn’t exist if people had made that a deciding factor. A social network is not a community. It may contain many communities. GitHub has communities around projects. But GitHub as a whole isn’t a community.
    - gchamonlive 1y ago
      Ah yes, we agree. GH itself enables many communities to emerge but it itself isn't a community.
- stavros 1y ago
  People will respond to incentives. They had an incentive to host their code in a place that easily let them do things that were extremely high friction before. People aren't morally reprehensible because they prefer convenience over hardship. People like using easy things, and they like making money. This means that people will make easy things so other people will give them money. If you don't like it, make easy things that work the way you like them, run them ethically, and don't sell them to anyone.
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    > People will respond to incentives....People aren't morally reprehensible because they prefer convenience over hardship To clarify my point isn't that anyone is morally reprehensible. My point is that using a free VC-backed service is like selling an implied option. You don't know when they're going to invoke the option, but eventually they will. And often it will be when you've gotten used to the income from selling the option. It's not a question of morality or judgment, it's just meant to be a description of what the game we're playing is. > If you don't like it, make easy things that work the way you like them, run them ethically, and don't sell them to anyone. I'm trying to
    - stavros 1y ago
      Sure, but nobody knows this. Everyone just thinks that things will be as they are now. I don't think the average developer knows what enshittification is, but Doctorow really nailed that one.
Mistletoe 1y ago
> It bought the medium and took an entire community hostage in the process just for the sake of profit. Counterpoint is that is what companies are supposed to do. They are made to make money, the end. The only hope against this for humans is regulation, and that has fallen off the face of the earth. It’s like humans are doomed to repeat the late 19th and early 20th century era over and over.
- generic92034 1y ago
  "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders!"

layer8 1y ago

While Microsoft is certainly to blame, GP is also right that the problem wouldn’t exist if people hadn’t continued en masse to have their code hosted on a centralized proprietary and (since 2012) VC-funded platform in the first place. As an aside, I don’t really see GitHub as a whole as a community. It’s a go-to place with network effects, but network effects doesn’t by itself imply “community”.

gchamonlive 1y ago
Yeah, I said that first thing. It's right but it misses the point. Being VC backed isn't a deciding factor for adopting a forge. It's the community that drives adoption. > I don’t really see GitHub as a whole as a community. It's basically a social network on top of a source code forge. You have a profile that is individually identifiable, you can open issues and contribute to discussions on pull requests. All this can be tracked back to every individual while they collaborate and make connections while they contribute to each other. How is this not a community?
- layer8 1y ago
  > Being VC backed isn't a deciding factor for adopting a forge. It's the community that drives adoption. OP is arguing that VC should be a deciding factor. The “community” wouldn’t exist if people had made that a deciding factor. A social network is not a community. It may contain many communities. GitHub has communities around projects. But GitHub as a whole isn’t a community.
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    Ah yes, we agree. GH itself enables many communities to emerge but it itself isn't a community.
stavros 1y ago
People will respond to incentives. They had an incentive to host their code in a place that easily let them do things that were extremely high friction before. People aren't morally reprehensible because they prefer convenience over hardship. People like using easy things, and they like making money. This means that people will make easy things so other people will give them money. If you don't like it, make easy things that work the way you like them, run them ethically, and don't sell them to anyone.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  > People will respond to incentives....People aren't morally reprehensible because they prefer convenience over hardship To clarify my point isn't that anyone is morally reprehensible. My point is that using a free VC-backed service is like selling an implied option. You don't know when they're going to invoke the option, but eventually they will. And often it will be when you've gotten used to the income from selling the option. It's not a question of morality or judgment, it's just meant to be a description of what the game we're playing is. > If you don't like it, make easy things that work the way you like them, run them ethically, and don't sell them to anyone. I'm trying to
  - stavros 1y ago
    Sure, but nobody knows this. Everyone just thinks that things will be as they are now. I don't think the average developer knows what enshittification is, but Doctorow really nailed that one.

Mistletoe 1y ago

> It bought the medium and took an entire community hostage in the process just for the sake of profit. Counterpoint is that is what companies are supposed to do. They are made to make money, the end. The only hope against this for humans is regulation, and that has fallen off the face of the earth. It’s like humans are doomed to repeat the late 19th and early 20th century era over and over.

generic92034 1y ago
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders!"