3 ms·
It's an excellent choice. Though Microsoft alone should be a sufficient answer. Many people will never interact with github projects because it requires an acco
by a96 1y ago
It's an excellent choice. Though Microsoft alone should be a sufficient answer. Many people will never interact with github projects because it requires an account with the most unethical company that ever existed.
https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/
- 369548684892826 1y ago> the most unethical company that ever existed Maybe in the tech world, but in the real world there are companies such as Nestlé out there competing for this title.
- lou1306 1y agoNot even in the tech world. Microsoft did more than its fair share of cutthroat business practices, but there are tech companies out there that are quite literally thriving on worker exploitation.
- 1718627440 1y agoAmazon?
- DrewADesign 1y agoDamn near any gig economy company.
- mavhc 1y agoI raise you The East India Company
- oblio 1y agoWhich one?
- kristopolous 1y agoBelgian Congolese tire companies under King Leopold, Atlantic slave trade companies, Basil Zaharoff and Vickers who sold machine guns to both sides agitating WW1, IG Farben who did the Nazi gas chambers, Shell oil who since the 1970s continues spending billions funding climate change disinformation and billions preparing for it, at the same time... It's a long list. Take Hyundai, a brand I drive, childhood slave factories, in the 2020s... You can't even brush your teeth without the ghosts of slavery.
- t43562 1y agoIn the tech age there are new East India Company equivalents.
- nmz 1y agoThere's companies out there whose main source of business is wetworks, as in drone strikes and so on, microsoft going for the most unethical title, I don't think its even in the ranking. I do agree that not using it is better morally, however, given the limitations of git vs fossil, which carries the issues and wiki inside the repo itself, its not a good idea to switch to another service without guarantees that its host will be forever standing, github won't die in the next decade, but the alternatives mentioned might. even google (code) got out of the source hosting business.
- shiomiru 1y agoBut your confidence in GitHub's continued existence comes from its network effects, no? And competing services can only gain such network effects if more people use them. So to me this feels like a defeatist argument.
- nmz 1y agoThis is not a magical achievement, github is solvent and its business model is solid, give the same amount of users to any other service and it might collapse. Any service has to scale and the more users it has the more costs it incurs, nonprofits are a risk, the moment they run out of money, the service collapses.
- shiomiru 1y agoIf it's not a magical achievement, then surely competitors could replicate it too. Of course you can't put a million users today in a service used by a thousand yesterday, but I don't buy the "non-profits don't scale" argument. If that were true, we wouldn't have Wikipedia either.
- nmz 1y agoReplication is not enough, Competition only wins if it offers lower cost or better service (or intolerable service if free), While yes, the userbase is essential, you're still ignoring the reason why the userbase is there in the first place services before github existed and github is the one that ended up winning, competition cannot just offer a better ethical stance and its not even that, since github itself is not doing anything criminal, it's simply aligned with microsoft, so the ethical stance is "I don't like AI" and "I don't like microsoft", that is simply not enough of an offer to make the entire userbase switch. the only way you could is if github decided to throw all of its userbase like bitbucket did, and given that its name is git, I doubt they'll ever do that.
- paradox460 1y ago> the most unethical company that ever existed. The East India trading company?