
Ask HN: GitHub censoring porn from GitHub pages. Would that be OK or not OK? - eevilspock
In the debate[1] over GitHub&#x27;s new Code of Conduct[2] and their recent actions to enforce it, a great number if a not majority of HN commenters condemned it as an unconscionable moral betrayal. There was no gray area.<p>The anti-GitHub sentiment is cropping up in other comment threads, and apparently is driving an exodus from GitHub to Y-Combinator&#x27;s own GitLab[3].<p>This is not a troll post. It is a genuine question to understand the value system that seems to dominate tech culture, the very same culture that is experiencing a growing societal backlash.<p>My hope is that we can have, as <i>dang</i> puts it, a reflective rather than reflexive discussion[4]. Please, comment thoughtfully. Try for &quot;Feynman integrity&quot;[5]. Avoid the knee-jerk. Stay true to HN&#x27;s own code of conduct[6]. Sorry about all the links.<p>-<p>[1] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9966118<p>[2] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-conduct<p>[3] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10003334<p>[4] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10001153<p>[5] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9996843<p>[6] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html
======
dudul
The main issue IMHO is that the latest developments strongly highlight the
fact that GitHub is a private company, running closed-source software and they
can do whatever they want. Your code belongs to them.

They decided that 'retard' wasn't ok and closed a repo. Fine, they're allowed
to, but then what? What's the next "offensive" term they'll ban? Maybe
tomorrow they'll remove all repos that use the widely accepted terms
"master/slave" for distributed systems just for good PR.

And that's not even accounting for the inconsistency. There are literally
>100k occurrences of 'retard' on GitHub (there was a blog post about that on
HN in the past 48 hours), and I'm counting the 'fuck' and co. Are they gonna
close 100k repos?

To me, that was the last straw. They want to behave like a private company
using their software, and somehow posturing as the white knight of Open
Source? I'm done with that and I migrated to Gitlab.

~~~
eevilspock
> Your code belongs to them.

That is a very false characterization. If they boot you from their servers all
you've lost is their hosting of your code. Given that this is built on top of
Git, you can migrate your code with full history at any time, for whatever
reason.

> Fine, they're allowed to, but then what? What's the next "offensive" term
> they'll ban? Maybe tomorrow they'll remove all repos that use the widely
> accepted terms "master/slave" for distributed systems just for good PR.

Slippery Slope Fallacy: [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-
slope.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)

You never answered the question of this post. If someone started hosting porn
on GitHub pages, would it be okay for them to ban it?

> And that's not even accounting for the inconsistency. There are literally
> >100k occurrences of 'retard' on GitHub (there was a blog post about that on
> HN in the past 48 hours), and I'm counting the 'fuck' and co. Are they gonna
> close 100k repos?

Another logical fallacy. Just because someone can't do something perfectly
doesn't mean it's wrong to try.

> posturing as the white knight of Open Source?

Can you explain how they are posturing?

Whether or not they are posturing, how are they betraying Open Source by
enforcing this Code of Conduct? Again, they are not taking over your source
when they reject it, they are doing just that, rejecting it. In the same way
that FOSS adherents want to reject non-free software.

~~~
dudul
I say "your code belongs to them" in the sense that they are the new LinkedIn-
for-developers. The code you put there is your new resume (I kind of disagree
with that, but this is a narrative that is very much around). If they ban you
you lose access to a big share of the market.

Have fun with your fallacies. (especially the "slippery slope" one has be
debunked many times
[http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf))
If you don't understand the concept of precedence what do you want me to say?
We'll reconvene after their next PR move if you want. I was highlighting the
fact that as a private company they can do as they please, yesterday they
targeted the 'retard' repo, tomorrow who knows.

"Can you explain how they are posturing?" Really? You are telling me that
they're all marketing isn't to represent themselves as _the_ platform for OS?
There's nothing wrong with this strategy, but that's what they do.

Funny that you completely ignored my main point: their platform is _not_ open
source, it's not hard to see how OS fans may take offense in that.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I say "your code belongs to them" in the sense that they are the new
> LinkedIn-for-developers. The code you put there is your new resume (I kind
> of disagree with that, but this is a narrative that is very much around). If
> they ban you you lose access to a big share of the market.

If you don't have _any_ public share repositories to point to, you lose
something.

I don't think not being on GitHub _specifically_ is a problem of the same
order of magnitude.

------
backlash
Can you explain more about what you mean by "dominate tech culture", and
"...experiencing a growing societal backlash". What are you looking at to
determine the culture? How are you measuring the growth of any backlash? What
backlash are you referring to? Is there a reliable method for detecting when
one is in an echo chamber?

------
DanBC
Their servers, their rules.

